Pakistan is going through a very difficult and complex time, not only
internally but externally. US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s
recent visit to Pakistan has been acknowledged by the educated middle
and upper class Pakistanis, whereas the common people of Pakistan who
control national opinion were disenchanted and extremely skeptical.
There were even reservations from the so-called educated middle and
upper class Pakistanis about Clinton’s visit.
The journalists and media personalities were again divided over their
opinion on Clinton’s visit and why shouldn’t they be? The USA and
Pakistan have always had a very complex relationship, dictated by
ulterior motives and lack of trust. The US is faced with a host of
challenges today. On one hand the political instability and worsening
security situation in Afghanistan has put US President Obama’s
administration in an indecisive frame of mind.
Washington is debating whether to commit more troops to Afghanistan and
how to accommodate for the recent pull out of troops from US allies.
Another unnerving factor is the resurgence of Taliban in Pakistan; how
this will affect Pakistan and in turn the region. Last but not least is
the instability in the Middle East from which the United States cannot
separate itself. The US is fighting a global ‘War on Terror’ which
ranges from Afghanistan to Israel to their home soil. The only reason
the US is involved in the global ‘War on Terror’ is for its homeland
security and to protect its interests around the world. When US motives
would be so self-centered then it will be impossible to do justice to
all parties. The Muslim world will see this new phase in history as an
attempt by the US to undermine, isolate and discriminate against it and
ignoring the legitimate concerns and grievances of the Muslims today. If
one is to analyze the recent visit of US Secretary of State Hillary
Clinton to Pakistan, then this visit had nothing new to offer to
Pakistan if compared with the past, not even in terms of US attitude
towards Pakistan. Clinton called for a “new page” in relations with
Pakistan to fight Al-Qaeda in Pakistan. She was seriously critical about
the policies of former US President George W. Bush’s administration
towards Pakistan.
She tried to bridge the communication gap between US and Pakistan and
left leaving a message of goodwill. But what was first and foremost in
Clinton’s mind were her own country’s interests in Pakistan and her
statements made that abundantly clear. Washington has put Pakistan at
the heart of the fight against Al-Qaeda and US officials have been
consistently blaming Pakistan for not doing enough to crush Islamist
militancy within its State. Clinton talked tough like her predecessors
and declared that Al-Qaeda has had safe haven in Pakistan since 2002 and
was increasingly skeptical about claims from the Pakistan Government
that they don’t have adequate knowledge and intelligence about Al-Qaeda
and their hideouts in Pakistan. Clinton’s statements gave an impression
that she and her administration believed that Osama bin Laden and
Al-Qaeda leadership are hiding inside Pakistan and that Pakistan is not
doing enough to capture America’s worst enemy. Clinton however was quick
to deny this in an interview with CBS television. It is however an open
secret that the US does believe that Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaeda
leadership is hiding inside Pakistan. Hence, Clinton’s commitment,
goodwill and allegiance to Pakistan are conditional to Pakistan’s
approach to fighting Al-Qaeda and growing militancy in its soil. If
Pakistan is not receptive and forthcoming to US policies then the same
Obama administration will start talking tough. If the US is not talking
tough at the moment then India is. Home minister P Chidambaram has
warned Pakistan against interfering in India’s affairs and stated that
the Mumbai attacks should be the “last game” Pakistan plays with India.
P Chidambaram while boasting India’s success against foreign militancy
stated that India had the strength to tackle any militancy and will deal
with “them (i.e. Pakistan) strongly”. He pledged serious retaliation if
an incident like the Mumbai attacks happens in the future. India has
always seen itself as aggrieved party hurt by terrorism across the
border from Pakistan. Pakistan has some very genuine counter arguments
to say in this regard as well. The Kashmir issue is the “mother of all
issues” when it comes to Pakistan and until and unless it is not
resolved, the situation between India and Pakistan will remain tense.
There is a final point to make here is that when Indian politicians have
nothing substantial to say on national issues, they resort to talking
tough on Pakistan and resort to making threats. P Chidambaram is no
exception.
The Kashmir issue is being discussed and debated again after it was put
under cold storage during Musharraf’s era (although the Musharraf regime
time and again raised the Kashmir issue with India but was unsuccessful
in resolving the matter and was later silenced by US pressure). India
and Pakistan are trying to think afresh on Kashmir but policy shifts and
ideological differences between the two countries have always been the
reasons why this issue is not resolved till today. For New Delhi, the
accession of Kashmir to India is final and complete, and the challenge
now remains of addressing cross-border terrorism, economic development
and grievances of its people whereas Pakistan shows no sign of resting
on this issue since 1947. In the eyes of Pakistan Kashmir is a disputed
territory and it will remain an unresolved agenda unless India shows a
serious change in its position and approach. Both India and Pakistan did
show willingness to explore options and reach a mutual agreement. India
agreed to have composite talks with Pakistan while Pakistan altered its
approach by not restricting itself to UN resolutions. But New Delhi’s
strategy to see whether Pakistan delivers on curbing on its reliance on
its Army and its intelligence agency, the ISI, on terror as a strategic
tool against India is completely unacceptable to Pakistan.
Furthermore both sides have accused each other of testing their patience
and resolve. The recent example is the Mumbai 26/11 terror attacks.
India accused Pakistan of delaying putting the wrongdoers to justice
whereas Pakistan was requesting India for more time to deliver results.
India doesn’t want to hold talks with a country where there is rapid
spread of Talibanisation and militancy that affect its own territory.
Pakistan accuses India of unjustly intervening and aggravating an
already volatile internal situation. Two such divergent positions have
apparently left no scope for a solution, unless both the countries try
to merge their two positions at a mutually agreed point. Pakistan’s
internal situation is not satisfactory in any sense of the manner and
the response from abroad is not entirely dependable. The world is
watching and waiting how Pakistan delivers in a unique and deadly war
against terrorism. Pakistan has no choice but to deliver on all fronts
and put its critics to rest.
