Pakistan - The fallacy of being a frontline state ( Mansoor Ijaz

MMN ^ | 2.28.2003 | Mansoor Ijaz

[swarthyguy]

The US ambassador to Pakistan, Ms Nancy Powell has let the cat out of the bag by publicly validating the Indian claim that Pakistan has not fulfilled its promise of stopping infiltration into Kashmir. Pakistan’s alleged support for North Korean nuclear programme is taken seriously in some Washington circles. Furthermore, many in the US governing circles believe that Pakistan has not done enough to eradicate terrorist groups. Therefore, behind the scenes, the US is not buying the Pakistani claim of being a frontline state against terrorism.

The Bush administration, obsessed with Iraq and North Korea, has no choice but to maintain the status quo with Pakistan for now. However, Pakistan will be in a lot more trouble when war with Iraq is over. In such circumstances, despite soothing statements, the US is not going to give any concessions on new discriminatory immigration rules. Probably, Pakistan’s foreign minister, Mr Khushid Mehmood Kasuri will listen to a lot of US grumbling — all behind closed doors, of course — then he can squeeze any concession for Pakistani immigrants.

Pakistanis may have every reason to believe that their country is used as a frontline state against terrorism but Americans and many others have serious doubts about such a designation. The often repeated question is that if Pakistan’s intelligence agencies have allegedly housed terrorist outfits in Pakistan, brought and sustained Taliban in Afghanistan and terrorists such as Ramzi Yusuf, onward nabbed from that country, then who is it that Pakistan is acting as a frontline state against? When religious political parties, supporting violent outfits, have been legitimised and given the power share in the political structure — control of government in one province and significant leverage in the centre and other regions — which external power Islamabad claims to be confronting? Therefore, many believe that Pakistan is a frontline state against its own internal set-ups, political as well as extra-political.

Actually frontline state designation was self-assigned to start with. To strengthen negotiating position with the US, some shrewd Pakistani diplomats borrowed the term from anti-Soviet Afghan war of 80s and used it so often that most Pakistanis started believing it as an article of faith. The US diplomats have been using the term ‘partner’ or ally and term ‘frontline’ is not part of US diplomatic lingo, according to Ms Teresita Schaffer of the Centre for Strategic and International Studies. More importantly, Pakistan has been interpreting these terms differently from the US, she adds. In the present circumstances, Pakistan’s self-conceived importance is not shared by many in the US despite the importance attached to its cooperation.

For now, the US has no alternative but to seek the cooperation of General Musharraf and the military. The US is well aware that without their cooperation terrorism cannot be fought either in Afghanistan or within Pakistan. The US does not say it openly but believes that Pakistan is part of the problem and there is no better alternative but to make it a part of the solution. Perceptions about terrorists also differ. For the US, jihadis fighting in Kashmir are the same people it is fighting against while for Gen Musharraf they are legitimate freedom fighters. Such fundamental differences have started popping up and may become points of confrontation between the two countries in the future.

Pakistan’s alleged involvement with the North Korean nuclear programme is also a landmine in the Pak-US relationship. Seymour Hersh has made new claims about Pakistan’s involvement in the latest edition of the New Yorker. Basing his information on a top-secret CIA report, Mr Hersh asserts that Pakistan provided centrifuge machine to North Korea. He has quoted a CIA source saying that “It points a clear finger at the Pakistanis. The technical stuff is crystal clear, not hedged and not ambivalent.” Mr Hersh has quoted another US policymaker declaring, “Right now, the most dangerous country in the world is Pakistan. If we’re incinerated next week, it’ll be because of HEU (highly enriched uranium) that was given to al-Qaeda by Pakistan.”

Mr. Hersh’s credibility may remain questionable for many because President Bush vehemently rejected his previous assertions. However, one will have to make a big assumption about Mr Bush’s truthfulness also after listening to his daily statements on Iraq. Regardless of Mr Hersh’s credit worthiness, allegations against Pakistan have been circulating in Washington circles since the last few months. Anti-Pakistan sentiments are rising slowly and one should not be surprised if the US re-imposes sanctions.

In the past, Pakistan has never had a realistic understanding about its relationship with the US. Every time the Pak-US alliance is revived, Pakistan interprets it as an endorsement of its Kashmir policy. On the contrary, the US expects that Pakistan has the understanding about divergent views on Kashmir despite a temporary alliance for a specific purpose. The US has to accept the blame for such misconceptions. To achieve its short-term goals, it keeps ignoring many essential issues. For example, the US was ignoring Pakistan’s nuclear programme during 80s for obvious reasons. The US kept on tolerating the violation of its law for so many years. As a result, Pakistan started taking it as a routine matter. However, when anti-Soviet struggle was concluded the US slammed sanctions, shocking Pakistan. Unfortunately, Pakistan is in for another shock in the near future.

Pakistan government and intelligentsia should take a realistic look at its relationship with the US. For the US, Pakistan is not a frontline state against terrorism but a part of the problem. Pakistan’s support for Kashmiri jihad is taken to be part of the terrorist networking. In addition, Pakistan’s credibility for non-proliferation is also coming under tight scrutiny. Once the international scene changes and Afghanistan is stabilized Pakistan will face much severe US sanctions or may be more.

-Manzur Ejaz

[swarthyguy]

Slightly different spelling of Mansur's name.

Fairly pessimistic take on Pakistan by a US Citizen of Pakistani descent.

And no doubt about Mush's BS argument about only providing 'moral' support for jihadis. Even Mansur now acknowledges the same jihadis in Kashmir are the enemies in Afghanistan. So much for the Pakistani lie about not providing support for jihadis.

[swarthyguy]

Pakistan Delenda Est?

[TADSLOS]

Sending U.S. Forces into Pakistan in the (near) future and cleaning out Al Qaeda is pretty much a foregone conclusion. Musharref doesn't have the will or inclination to do it.

[ScholarWarrior]

That would be Act Four, Scene Two.

We're only in Act Two, Scene One.

[TADSLOS]

I know, I know. I've always had a weakness for reading ahead.

[Free the USA]

http://www.freerepublic.com/perl/bump-list

[keri]

Thanks for the ping, swarthy.

Bump to you, Allan.

[fatidic]

Am I the only one who finds something a bit odd about Mansoor Ijaz? I think he is not what he seems.

[swarthyguy]

His overtly ProPakistani views as expressed during the US Afghan campaign (probably a reflection of his desire to potray and present Pakistan in the best light) seem to have ameliorated somewhat, as even Mansur seems to finally acknowledge the true jihadist nature of Pakistan and the fact that its secular elites, such as they are, have not shown the backbone to take on the jihadis.

He's been in a quandary; recognising the true jihadist nature of Pakistani society, but wanting it to break out of the grip of the jihadis. At the same time, preserving his Pakistani bonafides by not appearing to be too pro-Indian.

But deep down in his heart he must recognise, that as valuable as Pakistani contributions were to the COldWar - U2's in Peshawar (Gary Powers took off from there, IIRC), Kissinger's jaunt to Beijing from Islamabad, and the pivotal role played by the ISI against the Soviets in Afghanistan - the country has gone in for jihadism thoroughly. Seems like he recognises Pakistan's position is untenable, seemingly and the US cannot keep pretending otherwise. More raids from Pakistani safe sanctuaries on US troops will make the US unable to preserve the fiction of Pakistani cooperation in the antiJihad.

[swarthyguy]

Ideally, NWFP, Waziristan, the border tribal areas, Northern Kashmir should all have been part of Act 1.

The 'no hot pursuit' policy should not have been put into effect last spring for political reasons as all it has accomplished is to give the jihadis a year's breathing room to regroup, replenish and rearm in the Pakistani badlands. But that's spilt milk now as I'm sure we're on high guard for any hijinks and jihadi shenanigans as the Iraqi campaign unfolds.

[swarthyguy]

Ideally, NWFP, Waziristan, the border tribal areas, Northern Kashmir should all have been part of Act 1.

The 'no hot pursuit' policy should not have been put into effect last spring for political reasons as all it has accomplished is to give the jihadis a year's breathing room to regroup, replenish and rearm in the Pakistani badlands. But that's spilt milk now as I'm sure we're on high guard for any hijinks and jihadi shenanigans as the Iraqi campaign unfolds.

[ScholarWarrior]

Yes, I would have been more aggressive in hot pursuit. However, I kind of like having them stew there for awhile wondering if and when we'll come for them . . .which we will.

[Aaron_A]

If we had been able to 'hot pursuit' these bastards when they were running scared after Tora Bora, the world would be a MUCH better place today.

The Pakis will have to eventually pay.

[Jim Noble]

>>it should be eliminated from the face of earth. it belongs to india<<

I agree except that I think USA needs to occupy NW Frontier temporarily.

How do you say "Let's roll" in Hindi?

[Happy2BMe]

The O'Reilly Factor - USF's Sami Al Arian's Arrest (And What The Muslims Say About It)