Fiction and facts
Mohammad Jamil
Going by the conjectures of the US think tanks and contradictory
statements by members of the US administration - some using all the
superlatives for Pakistan and the others resorting to accusations and
vitriolic that tarnish Pakistan’s image, one could draw the conclusion
that this is being done to keep the Pakistan leadership guessing about
their insidious plans. Bruce Riedel, a former CIA officer and at the
present a senior fellow at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at
the Brookings Institution who had chaired an inter-agency review of
policy toward Afghanistan and Pakistan for the Obama administration in
his essay published on 23rd June 2009 in ‘Council on Foreign Relations’
wrote: “A jihadist victory in Pakistan, meaning the takeover of the
nation by a militant Sunni movement led by the Taliban, would have
devastating consequences. It would create the greatest threat the United
States has yet to face in its war on terror. Pakistan as an
Islamic-extremist safe haven would bolster al-Qaeda’s capabilities
tenfold”.
Throughout his above essay, Bruce Riedel uses his wild imagination to
create situations based on fiction, sets premises and draws his
conclusions. He goes on to say: “To secure power, the Taliban -
currently concentrated in the tribal areas west of the Indus and all
along the border with Afghanistan - would need to move east. This would
take them from the Pashtun-dominated regions into the Punjabi heartland,
where they need to gain significantly more support”. Earlier, India, the
US and the West had been trying to portray Pakistan as a state that
might collapse and terrorists could lay their hands on Pakistani nukes.
But seeing that Pakistan’s armed forces have demolished the
infrastructure and network of the Taliban in Swat and Malakand, and are
poised to take on militants in Waziristan, the US think tanks now
suggest that Pakistan government should focus on extremists in Southern
Punjab, which they consider a bigger threat than the Taliban in Swat and
elsewhere. Anyhow, the US has the penchant for controlling Pakistani
nukes but Pakistan has frustrated the plans by conducting operation
against militants.
Against this backdrop, the report in national English daily that the US
plans to have a bigger presence in Pakistan in the pursuit of its
strategic interests in the region has raised alarm in public and
government circles. The report said: “The two most obvious indications
of US intentions are the upcoming large-scale staff surge at the
Islamabad embassy, which includes hundreds of marines, and the massive
expansion work at the embassy premises”. Some of these reservations were
expressed by former foreign secretary Shamshad Ahmed Khan who said
indications were very clear that America wanted to “remote-control” the
region from Islamabad. A former diplomat was also reported to have said:
“Clearly these are people who would be coming under cover of diplomatic
assignments for covert operations that would be detrimental for
Pakistan’s security interests.” If this report is authentic then there
is cause for alarm because it would annoy Pakistan’s friends like China
that are already wary of increased US presence in the region.
Three weeks ago, national English daily in its editorial had written
that American diplomats in Islamabad keep roaming free on the city roads
armed with guns and revolvers and in cars bearing fake numbers. Some of
them were caught but were let off the hook on the basis of diplomatic
immunity. One could question as to what right they have to flout the
laws of the land? Pakistan is ally in war on terror, nothing less
nothing more. And if the US had given $10 billion over the period of 8
years, it wasn’t a big deal, as a major part of the funds for war on
terror was in fact reimbursement of the expenses incurred on logistics
for 100000 Pakistani troops deployed on Pak-Afghan border. There are
50000 US and NATO troops in Afghanistan and the US spent $250 billion
during the last 8 years, whereas it gave Pakistan only $ 10 billion
during this period that too on verification about the progress made and
number of terrorists killed in the operation. The government had
calculated the financial loss incurred by Pakistan since the time it
joined the war on terror, which is more than $39 billion.
Despite having given sacrifices in men and material, Pakistan was
accused of diverting the meager funds the US gave for buying weapons
that were India-specific. They had joined the chorus with India to take
action against those who were behind the 26/11 Mumbai terrorists’
attack, but would not like to persuade India to stop training and
funding insurgents in Balochistan and FATA. Well-informed sources have
said that Pakistan’s political and military authorities have handed over
substantial evidence to its allies, the US and NATO, regarding India’s
links with Baitullah Mehsud and provision of aid to him through Indian
consulate in Afghanistan. Holbrooke however assured Pakistan of taking
up this matter with India at diplomatic level. Afghan government was
also told to stop using Indian consulate against Pakistan. But Holbrooke
said the other day that Pakistan had talked to him about Indian
involvement in insurgency in Balochistan but he was not provided
credible evidence.
The New York Times reported on Wednesday that Pakistan linked its action
against the Lashkar-e-Taiba with New Delhi ending its covert operations
in Balochistan. The report said that in conversations with the Obama
administration, Pakistan’s army chief indicated that India needed to
stop meddling in Balochistan in return for Pakistan’s actions against
the Lashkar. We do not know the authenticity of these reports because
there is so much deceit and deception that it is difficult to
differentiate between facts and fiction, and truth and lies. Anyhow, if
Pakistan has linked Pakistan’s cooperation with India’s cooperation to
stop funding and training insurgents in Balochistan, it has done the
right thing. In fact, Pakistan government should have made it clear
right from the beginning that if India would not stop its covert
operations then Pakistan would pay in the same coin. India has to
realize that if it becomes part of any sinister design to destabilize
Pakistan, then India would not remain as a cohesive unit in its present
shape.
Though India faces separatists’ movements in about a dozen provinces
together with threat from Maoists and the situation is more dismal than
Pakistan yet western media suppresses these facts. The difference lies
in the imaginative approach of the Indian leadership and its think tanks
who has unleashed propaganda that Pakistan is on the brink of collapse.
They in cahoots with the US think tanks issued new Pakistan’s maps
showing FATA and NWFP and some territory of Balochistan as parts of
Afghanistan. And some are working on the plan of greater Balochistan.
But India is also aware of the consequences if it goes too far, which is
why India’s finance minister Pranab Mukherjee has recently said that
India cannot erase Pakistan.
But Pakistan should not lower its guard on the basis of such statements
and should gird up its loins to meet any eventuality. It would have been
better if Pakistani think tanks had come out with the maps showing how
India would look like after its disintegration. They could have shown
Bombay, East Punjab and Kashmir as parts of Pakistan. |
