The order of the meeting, first with Mr. Musharraf and then Mr. Nawaz Sharif and Mr. Yousaf Raza Gillani, who has just taken an oath for the Prime Minister’s office, questions the sincerity of the U.S. in developing contacts with the elected officials. Although as is being argued that the visit was planned beforehand, it would not have been an unusual matter had the order of meetings switched to take into account the newly emerging power structure in the country, if one were to believe we are indeed passing through the transformation phase, the culmination of which would of course be if the National Assembly’ dissolution by an indirectly elected man is prevented by the abolition of the notorious 58 (2)(B) (although it is a disputed question whether he is duly elected to be fair in all respects). The visit could have possibly been postponed to allow the formation of the government to be complete in all respects, with the swearing in of the cabinet as well.
There are already growing signs that Mr. Musharraf is hoping to cling on to power with active U.S. support and is not shy of issuing statements supporting the U.S. ‘war on terror’ as dictated by the U.S. However, in an effort to minimize public discontent, he has reiterated that only Pakistan Armed Forces had the right to operate in its territorial boundaries. This is mere rhetoric and repetition of past assertions. It is a fact that the territory of this country has been invaded by drones and missiles and what not and the blame has been taken by the Pakistan Armed Forces to avoid a negative fall out on the ‘Pak-U.S. cooperation’. Although we understand that these missions have inflicted casualties and suicide bombings as a response, what boggles one’s mind is why the previous government has been unable to embrace the truth and take the people into confidence over the issue in a complete manner.
Perhaps it would have been asking too much from the Musharraf led regime which surpassed all levels of distortions of facts be that the detention of the deposed judges, who were officially never even detained in the first place, or the cause of death of the recently slain leader of PPP, late Benazir Bhutto.
It was somewhat soothing to hear the new Prime Minister rebuff the U.S. Secretary of State and emphasize that the Parliament would decide all issues including the war on terror and all options would be explored. Neither any commitment has been given to the U.S. Deputy Secretary of State explicitly nor the option of use of force been ruled out. This is the balanced approach we need in dealing with the U.S., with whom we are interested in retaining close ties but not at the cost of public suffering and discontent amongst the masses for supporting the U.S. unilaterally.
The policy of supporting the U.S. post 9/11 should have been a result of consultation and consensus building. It was indeed a big decision for us which reversed our decades long policy of securing our Western border. We could have hardly ignored the support and approval required of the representatives of the tribal areas as well as taking into confidence the representation of NWFP. Mr. Musharraf however, chose to make the decisions himself, supposedly after being threatened by the U.S. It is not clear whether the U.S. indeed had made the threat in the first place that Pakistan would be thrown back to the stone ages (as Mr. Musharraf asserts in his book, although the U.S. denies the issuance of such threat).
The U.S. does employ every option at its disposal to make ‘allies’ cooperate but such threats were mere rebuffs as any annihilation of Pakistan because of 9/11 would have been totally unjustifiable. It is to be noted that the U.S. had made a false threat before 9/11 to the then ISI DG Mahmoood Ahmed, which the U.S. officials later appreciated was a bluff but Mr. Ahmed fell for it anyway. It is inconceivable moreover, that a democratically elected government could have been threatened in such an outright way, which is contrary to diplomatic norms, where other options such as collaboration could have always been sought as an exploration point.Hopefully, the U.S. would get the message right this time and understand that the benefits of negotiating and interacting with a democratic government are far more beneficial than dealing with an autocratic one. Mr. Musharraf’s arbitrary use of powers have done little to eradicate or isolate extremism in this country and have given rise to cases like Lal Masjid and manipulations by him to use the event to the best of his advantage. Although some top Al-Qaeda leaders have been arrested and thrown into Guantanamo bay, there is little to suggest that they would not be replaced by more ardent activists and masterminds with greater vigour. Only a democratic government can find avenues which have not been explored yet to solve the deteriorating law and order situation as well as dealing with extremists who are thought to be responsible for this. The U.S. must take a backseat and resist its impulses to react in haste as it has in Iraq and elsewhere in the past and instead let the democratic forces work in tandem without any intervention, coercion or intimidation.
This week the focus of attention has been on the visit of a U.S. official, who has just concluded his second tour of Pakistan in less than five months. This fact alone emphasizes the importance the U.S. attaches to its interests in this region primarily because of the presence of ‘militants’ who are more commonly referred to as ‘terrorists’. Since Pakistan is strategically located, at the foot of Afghanistan at the West where NATO forces led by U.S. are deployed in huge numbers, the tour can hardly be termed as a confidence building measure but is closer to an effort to undermine the prerogative of the new government to formulate its own policy regarding the issue of ‘militancy’ on its soil in consultation with all the stake holders who are now represented in the new national assembly.
The order of the meeting, first with Mr. Musharraf and then Mr. Nawaz Sharif and Mr. Yousaf Raza Gillani, who has just taken an oath for the Prime Minister’s office, questions the sincerity of the U.S. in developing contacts with the elected officials. Although as is being argued that the visit was planned beforehand, it would not have been an unusual matter had the order of meetings switched to take into account the newly emerging power structure in the country, if one were to believe we are indeed passing through the transformation phase, the culmination of which would of course be if the National Assembly’ dissolution by an indirectly elected man is prevented by the abolition of the notorious 58 (2)(B) (although it is a disputed question whether he is duly elected to be fair in all respects). The visit could have possibly been postponed to allow the formation of the government to be complete in all respects, with the swearing in of the cabinet as well.
There are already growing signs that Mr. Musharraf is hoping to cling on to power with active U.S. support and is not shy of issuing statements supporting the U.S. ‘war on terror’ as dictated by the U.S. However, in an effort to minimize public discontent, he has reiterated that only Pakistan Armed Forces had the right to operate in its territorial boundaries. This is mere rhetoric and repetition of past assertions. It is a fact that the territory of this country has been invaded by drones and missiles and what not and the blame has been taken by the Pakistan Armed Forces to avoid a negative fall out on the ‘Pak-U.S. cooperation’. Although we understand that these missions have inflicted casualties and suicide bombings as a response, what boggles one’s mind is why the previous government has been unable to embrace the truth and take the people into confidence over the issue in a complete manner.
Perhaps it would have been asking too much from the Musharraf led regime which surpassed all levels of distortions of facts be that the detention of the deposed judges, who were officially never even detained in the first place, or the cause of death of the recently slain leader of PPP, late Benazir Bhutto.
It was somewhat soothing to hear the new Prime Minister rebuff the U.S. Secretary of State and emphasize that the Parliament would decide all issues including the war on terror and all options would be explored. Neither any commitment has been given to the U.S. Deputy Secretary of State explicitly nor the option of use of force been ruled out. This is the balanced approach we need in dealing with the U.S., with whom we are interested in retaining close ties but not at the cost of public suffering and discontent amongst the masses for supporting the U.S. unilaterally.
The policy of supporting the U.S. post 9/11 should have been a result of consultation and consensus building. It was indeed a big decision for us which reversed our decades long policy of securing our Western border. We could have hardly ignored the support and approval required of the representatives of the tribal areas as well as taking into confidence the representation of NWFP. Mr. Musharraf however, chose to make the decisions himself, supposedly after being threatened by the U.S. It is not clear whether the U.S. indeed had made the threat in the first place that Pakistan would be thrown back to the stone ages (as Mr. Musharraf asserts in his book, although the U.S. denies the issuance of such threat).
The U.S. is known to employ every option at its disposal to make ‘allies’ cooperate but such false threats were mere feelers as any annihilation of Pakistan because of 9/11 would have been totally unjustifiable. It is to be noted that the U.S. had made a false threat before 9/11 to the then ISI DG Mahmoood Ahmed, which the U.S. officials later appreciated was a bluff but Mr. Ahmed fell for it anyway. It is inconceivable moreover, that a democratically elected government could have been threatened in such an outright way, which is contrary to diplomatic norms, where other options such as collaboration could have always been sought as an exploration point.Hopefully, the U.S. would get the message right this time and understand that the benefits of negotiating and interacting with a democratic government are far more beneficial than dealing with an autocratic one. Mr. Musharraf’s arbitrary use of powers have done little to eradicate or isolate extremism in this country and have given rise to cases like Lal Masjid and manipulations by him to use the event to the best of his advantage. Although some top Al-Qaeda leaders have been arrested and thrown into Guantanamo bay, there is little to suggest that they would not be replaced by more ardent activists and masterminds with greater vigour. Only a democratic government can find avenues which have not been explored yet to solve the deteriorating law and order situation as well as dealing with extremists who are thought to be responsible for this. The U.S. must take a backseat and resist its impulses to react in haste as it has in Iraq and elsewhere in the past and instead let the democratic forces work in tandem without any intervention, coercion or intimidation.
No comments:
Post a Comment