(New Trend Magazine)
(Others' Views) (We do not necessarily Agree on All Points)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to Al-Hayat, Arabic language paper, Pakistani police arrested
200
Muslims, mostly from Lashkare Taiba and al-Badr, in Karachi, in its
attempts
to stop collection of funds for the jihad in Kashmir. (August 23) Most
were
released later but the funds were not released.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANALYSIS of USA's PAKISTAN-AFGHANISTAN POLICY
U.S. Troops Have been Moved to Tajikistan
Wall Street Journal Signals Moves against Pakistan
by Shireen M Mazari
"Warning signs out for Pakistan"
The writer is Director General of the
Institute of Strategic Studies, Islamabad
-------------------------------------------------------------
For those Pakistanis who yearn for a close, positive relationship with
the
US and insist that the new global strategic realities, including the
US-Israel-India relationship does not in any way impact the prospects
of a
positive US-Pakistan alliance, the time has come to contend with a
contrary
reality. The reality on the ground is that the US has a two-point
agenda in
relation to Pakistan: One, to discredit Pakistan internationally so as
to
make it easier for the US to get its new ally India accepted as a major
global power. Linked to this is the objective of taming and
circumscribing
Pakistan's nuclear capability. Two, to punish Pakistan for its own
frustrations vis a vis the Taliban who have withstood all manner of
US-instigated pressures and military force on the Osama issue. Linking
the
two point agenda is the effort unleashed by the US to try and show
Pakistan
as part of the same brand of states so despised in the West - Iraq,
Afghanistan and so on.
Taking the first objective, one can see the difference in the approach
the
US has taken to the nuclear sanctions imposed on India and Pakistan.
Effectively these sanctions do not exist for India since the latest
Indo-Israeli arms deal centres on the transfer of weapon systems
developed
jointly by Israel and the US. That is why the US was able to stop
Israel
from selling one of those systems - the Phalcon - to China. While the
US
has allowed the Indo-Israeli deal to go through with not so much as a
whimper of protest, there has been hysterical finger pointing at China
for
allegedly selling weapons systems, especially missiles, to Pakistan.
To further undermine Pakistan's nuclear status, insinuations of the
"Islamic bomb" notion are being touted once again.
The latest in this
propaganda effort has been the story in the Wall Street Journal in
which it
is alleged that Pakistan supplied nuclear bomb plans to Iraq! The basis
for
this allegation is apparently the contention of UN inspectors (and we
know
how rational they were!) that they came across a Chinese design, which
was
presumed to have been supplied by Pakistan - although no proof is given
for
this assumption. But then it is not a matter of truth but one of
planting a
negative idea, or building on an already prevailing negative perception
(the "Islamic fundamentalism" factor) in the minds of the readers!
Never
mind that the US and France helped - and probably still do - Israel and
India build their nuclear capability! In any case, such accusations are
aimed at building on Pakistan's negative image to make it easier for
China
to disown its military relationship with Pakistan and to make it easier
for
India to get acceptability for its extensive nuclear capability and
arsenal.
As for the second objective relating to Afghanistan and Pakistan, the
US is
gradually building up towards some military action against the Taliban
government. Its first such effort, which was primarily a "Get Osama"
one,
failed miserably - and the trauma of that cannot be ignored. After all,
the
only super power of the day could not get Osama from a "ragtag" bunch
of
Afghans calling themselves the Taliban! Now the US has decided to couch
their "Get Osama" policy within a wider garb of a "Get the Taliban"
policy.
It all began with the imposition of sanctions against the Taliban while
the
Northern Alliance was heavily armed by France, Russia and India.
Alongside
the sanctions, the US chose to provide aid to Afghans directly so as to
undermine the Taliban government from within. Unfortunately for the US,
all
this has not led to the removal of the Taliban from Kabul!
So now there are going to be UN Monitors placed primarily in Pakistan,
supposedly to monitor enforcement of the sanctions - but a wider agenda
for
these monitors cannot be ruled out. Two ominous developments have taken
place recently which all point to the possibility of some form of
US/international military action against the Taliban in the near
future.
The first has been the bellicose statements coming out of the US in
response to the arrest of the Shelter Now International personnel for
trying to convert the local Afghans to Christianity.
While one may hold no
brief for the Taliban's obscurantism, yet their laws must be respected
in
their country. Proselytizing is a known crime in Afghanistan and it is
inexplicable why NGO personnel from the West feel they can break local
laws
and get away with it. In any case, they must be subject to the law of
the
land. In fact it is not just NGO personnel but also ordinary Western
citizens who feel they are above the law in developing countries.
Remember
the hysteria in the Western press when Westerners were caught with
drugs in
Malaysia where there is a death penalty for drug-related crimes? One
may
not approve of the laws of other states but one cannot break them while
in
that state.
Anyhow, what is worse is the brazenness with which the US insists that
its
diplomats be allowed to visit the US citizens under arrest in Kabul,
given
that they have no diplomatic relations with Afghanistan. The US has
called
this denial a "violation of international norms" which they insist
require
that "consular officials be granted access to nationals who are
detained."
Obviously, the US is relying on everyone else being ignorant on this
front.
To begin with, where a country has no diplomatic relations, it has no
right
to consular access to its nationals who happen to be in that country.
That
is why, in such instances, a third country is asked to look after the
interests of a country that has no diplomatic relations itself. But, in
the
case of Afghanistan, even this was not done by the US. So even the
granting
of a visa to its diplomat to visit Kabul was a concession and favour on
the
part of the Taliban.
It is ironic how quickly the US forgets its own actions on these
issues.
Just recently, it denied consular access to two Germans who were
subsequently executed in the US in the state of Texas. During the legal
proceedings, which happened while the present US president Bush was
Governor of Texas, the two men were denied consular access. This was
despite the fact that Germany is a US ally! The Germans went to the
ICJ,
which gave an opinion against the US, but the US chose to ignore this.
So
much for observing international norms! Even earlier, to take just one
instance, the US bombing of the Libyan presidential palace, with no
declaration of war, was hardly in keeping with international norms.
Accompanying the present US bellicosity on the Taliban has been the
placing
of US troops in Tajikistan. The only rationale for such a move is a
future
attack against the Taliban in Afghanistan.
To ensure that Pakistan falls in
line, the Deputy Secretary of State, Richard Armitage, has issued a
statement that the US will not want Pakistan to go the Afghan way: "The
US
is not interested in Pakistan becoming more under the influence of
Afghanistan. We're going to try to play an effective role (in stopping
Pakistan from going the Taliban way)." The last sentence is a clear
indication that unless Pakistan plays ball with US aggression against
Afghanistan, it may also fall prey to this aggression. If ever there
was a
barely-veiled threat, this was it. Why was there a need for this?
Probably
because, after ZA Bhutto, General Musharraf's government has shown no
inclination to make secret deals with the Americans or Indians.
Finally,
national interest, defined from an indigenous perspective, is being
asserted in Pakistan's external policy formulations- as was reflected
at Agra.
Given US objectives in this region, there is simply no possibility of
Pakistan having a close, positive relationship with the US, no matter
how
much some people within the elite desire it. This is not to suggest
that
Pakistan should have an open conflict with the US. It should continue
to
dialogue, but give some space between itself and the US. There is a
difference between caution and laying oneself prostrate before what is
considered a strong power.
Especially on the issue of Afghanistan, we need to realize that we have
never broken diplomatic relations with Kabul - not even at the time of
the
Soviet invasion, nor when our consulate was burned in Jalalabad in the
fifties. If the rest of the world is concerned about Afghanistan, we,
as a
neighbour, have our own vital concerns.
That the Russians are using
Afghanistan to maintain a foothold in Central Asia, similar to the use
of
Iraq by the US in the Middle East, is abundantly clear. Also, one can
safely assume that in the future grand deal between Russia and the US,
Russia will want to secure Afghanistan as its own area of interest once
more.
What Pakistan needs to do is to become more proactive in the region
with
powers like China and Iran who may not be so sanguine about the
Russo-US
role in Afghanistan and Central Asia. Appeasement has never achieved
anything positive, and Pakistan needs to remember that. But, most
important, there has to be a strengthening of the domestic polity and
the
development of a rigorous indigenous discourse on international
relations.
After all, the ability to project our external policy objectives is
directly dependant on internal cohesion and strength of the domestic
polity
and the indigenous thought processes.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
www.NewTrendMag.org
----------------------------------------
2001-08-25 Sat 15:27ct