news details |
|
|
| Pakistan’s insincerity fuels US anger | | |
Amulya Ganguli |
Tony Blair described America as a "difficult friend." That Pakistan's experience is no different has been evident from the time Ayub Khan wanted the US to be a friend and not master. Yet, the fact that the master-servant relationship has continued was again confirmed by Pervez Musharraf's startling disclosure that the Americans had threatened to bomb his country into the stone age if it did not join the US war against Islamic terrorism.
Rarely before has the leader of a country and a military dictator to boot admitted to being so rudely insulted by a putative friend. It is obvious that Musharraf was taking a huge risk at the domestic level by his candid confession. He must have known that his opponents back home will seize the opportunity to portray him as a servile supplicant, who is ready to swallow an insult to keep his lord and master in good humour.
Read more hard-hitting columns
As it is, Pakistan has always been known for anti-American sentiments at the ground level. The anti-American mood has become worse in the aftermath of the US invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan. To the average Muslim in Pakistan, as elsewhere in the Islamic countries from North Africa and West Asia to South-east Asia, the American action is aimed at humiliating the Muslims in the name of fighting terrorism. So, Musharraf's revelation will hardly enhance his domestic position.
Why, then, did he spill the beans? He could have easily kept silent, for his humiliation was known only to himself, the Americans and perhaps a few countries close to Washington. He couldn't have done it only to make his self-adulatory autobiography, In the Line of Fire, sell since he has referred to the incident in it. Since he is looking to continue in office even after next year's elections, he would have been well advised to keep the subject under wraps and not provide such an effective campaigning point to his adversaries, including the two former prime ministers, Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif.
What the confession also made clear was that Pakistan must have initially resisted American efforts to enlist it in the war against terror. For, if Islamabad had willingly collaborated right from the start, Washington wouldn't have had the need to issue such a dire warning. But Islamabad must have appeared reluctant, which is not surprising considering its longstanding ties with the Taliban and its strategic blueprint to use Afghanistan as a zone of retreat in case of a war with India. Besides, the Taliban and Al-Qaeda provided training grounds as well as the jehadis for fighting in Kashmir.
Pakistan's unwillingness, therefore, was understandable since cooperation with the US would have meant the unravelling of its game plan, which had included the proxy war in Kashmir via the terrorists and the Kargil episode, which has received praise in Musharraf's autobiography for bringing the Kashmir issue back on the world stage. Unfortunately for Pakistan's military establishment and the ISI, America wasn't interested in its plans for wresting Kashmir from India. Instead, Washington was solely concerned with its own requirements for fighting Pakistan's friends, the Taliban and Al-Qaeda. And just as Pakistan was its cat's paw during the Cold War and the Afghan conflict after the Soviet invasion, it had to play the same role for the war against terror because of its geographical location. There was no alternative, therefore, for America but to force Pakistan against its will to join its latest crusade.
How has Musharraf tried to explain this switch of loyalty from the Taliban to America? As always, India is the key. As Musharraf has explained in his autobiography, he realised that if he turned down the US request and exposed his country to an American invasion, India would be the gainer. The latter's longstanding desire, in Musharraf's opinion, of the destruction of Pakistan would be achieved without having to fight a war. India had already cut Pakistan to half in 1971 by helping Bangladesh to break away. Now, the other half, too, would be gone.
It is an explanation which may help Musharraf to ward off some of the criticism over his abject capitulation to America. Since India has long been Pakistan's bugbear, there may be not a few who will buy Musharraf's line to say that kowtowing to America is better than fulfilling India's supposed dream of wiping Pakistan off the map. In any event, what all this shows yet again is Pakistan's obsession with India, which has brought it to its latest humiliating pass. But even if Pakistan has managed to survive in one piece, it has lost its hope of being seen as India's equal.
At the moment, its fortunes are at their lowest ebb. For one, the American threat has shown that it has little respect for Pakistan, an attitude which was confirmed by President Bush's declaration that the US forces wouldn't hesitate to enter Pakistani territory to hunt down Osama bin Laden. For another, Washington's offer of what has been described as "castrated" F-16s without vital electronic equipment has demonstrated how low Pakistan ranks in American eyes.
Pakistan has only itself to blame for this demeaning status. In its futile efforts to maintain a balance of power with a much bigger neighbour, it has made one mistake after another. First, it became a pawn in America's hands to fight the latter's battles against communism. Then, when this alliance failed to save it from losing its eastern wing in 1971, it joined hands with China. But that, too, was of little help. As Nawaz Sharif's journeys in rapid sequence to Beijing and Washington at the time of the Kargil crisis showed, Pakistan was always looking to its two Big Brothers to bail it out of any trouble. But when both urged it make peace with India, Musharraf had no option but to topple the elected government of Nawaz Sharif for, otherwise, the latter would have sacked him for his adventurism.
Now, Musharraf, too, knows that in spite of being the President and army chief, he is helpless before America's wrath. What is more, America's anger may have been fuelled by the suspicion that he has been less than sincere in his pursuit of the Taliban which, he now admits, has grown stronger than before. Afghanistan's Hamid Karzai, too, shares the same suspicion, which he has voiced before the UN General Assembly. So, even if Pakistan hasn't been bombed into the stone age, its image in the eyes of the world is hardly that of a modern country.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
