Author: Paul M. Weyrich
Publication: The Washington Times
Date: June 23, 2003
URL: http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20030623-084139-2234r.htm
If you ask anyone age 50 or older
who has followed world events, even rather remotely, which nation is the
closer ally of the United States, India or Pakistan, the near universal
answer would be Pakistan. That answer is based on the Cold War framework,
which defined our foreign policy for nearly half a century. India was in
the Soviet orbit. One of her states was even outright Communist. When Indira
Gandhi was prime minister, she made a point of siding with the Soviets
any chance she could. She was an especially unpleasant antagonist when
issues came before the United Nations.
India is potentially a very powerful
nation and the United States feared her activation against us. So, we signed
on with Pakistan as a counterweight on the subcontinent. Never mind that
Pakistan hardly represented the democratic ideals that we have always,
in one way or another, sought to export.
And despite the billions we poured
into Pakistan, we found that when all was said and done, that we didn't
exercise that much influence over Pakistan anyway. They developed nuclear
capabilities over our protests, and they tested these capabilities despite
our opposition. Eventually, we even ended up imposing military and economic
sanctions against Pakistan, because since the collapse of the Soviet Union,
a new and more virulent enemy has emerged in the form of Islamic extremism.
And the United States punished Pakistan for its support of the Taliban
and terrorists in India, for its nuclear program and for a coup that replaced
its own government.
Following September 11, Pakistan
saw its opportunity to get back into the good graces of the United States.
It pledged complete cooperation in the war against terrorists. And indeed
Pakistan was helpful in the war we conducted in Afghanistan. As a result,
most sanctions against Pakistan have been lifted and $3.5 billion has been
poured into Pakistan in the form of U.S. or multilateral aid. Pakistan,
in the words of Secretary of State Colin Powell, is now a "strategic ally"
of the United States.
Meanwhile, the situation in India
has changed dramatically. Its government is much more favorable to free
enterprise than it ever was in the past. India has come alive economically
and has the potential to be a much greater trading partner with the United
States than before. Of course, there is no cold war, and while India and
Russia remain friendly allies, India is more open to the West and specifically
to the United States than she has ever been.
And what of Pakistan? While she
has paid lip service to cracking down on terrorists, there is only so far
she can go, since Islamic extremists control parts of the country. Since
the sanctions have been removed there is considerable evidence that Pakistan
has escalated its attacks in Indian Kashmir. Some charge that the attack
on the Indian parliament building (which for Indians is their universal
symbol of their democracy) was orchestrated in Pakistan.
Pakistan has continued to export
terrorism via Islamic extremists. This has very dangerous implications
for all of South Asia.
In addition, there is considerable
evidence that large parts of the Pakistani security establishment are supporting
the revival of the Taliban. And if that isn't bad enough, Pakistan has
exported nuclear technology to, of all places, North Korea.
The Indian American Community, led
by the political action committee USINPAC, has been urging Congress to
re-examine U.S. policy on aid to Pakistan in light of Pakistan's involvement
in international terrorism. I believe this re-examination is long overdue.
Diligently walking the halls of
Congress, USINPAC had the House International Relations Committee take
up, and unanimously pass, an amendment to the Foreign Relations Authorizations
Act that for the first time will start holding Pakistan accountable for
its role in terrorism.
It would make further aid to Pakistan
contingent upon that country's complying with the following five conditions:
* That Pakistan close down all known
terrorist camps operating in Pakistan and in Pakistan-held Kashmir that
have been established for the express purpose of causing trouble in India
(including the Indian state of Jammu and Indian Kashmir).
* That Pakistan take serious and
identifiable measures to stop infiltration of Islamic extremists across
the Line of Control into India.
* That Pakistan close the offices
and freeze the bank accounts of all known terrorists operating in Indian
Kashmir, with due regard to their re-emergence under new names and locations.
* That Pakistan take serious and
identifiable measures to prevent any attack emanating from Pakistan on
US service personnel serving in Afghanistan.
* And that Pakistan commit to end
all proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, including any associated
technologies, to any third country or terrorist group.
Thus far, we have not seen evidence
of India supporting terrorist groups. Indeed, it has its own significant
problem with the Islamic extremists attacking anyone who is not of their
religion.
The Cold War is fading in memory.
Times are very different. Pakistan perhaps, can be helpful to our war on
terrorism but only if it stops exporting it. I agree with USINPAC that
further aid to Pakistan ought to be tied to these conditions. I am sure
the State Department would oppose such an amendment to our foreign aid
bill, but the United States is unique in that it has separate but equal
branches of our federal government. Congress should go ahead and pass what
USINPAC is advocating. If it is really too restrictive to President Bush,
he can veto the legislation. At least we will serve notice to Pakistan
that they can't have it both ways.
And while we are at it, I think
we ought to seriously explore the possibility that India can be a strategic
ally. In the long run it seems to me India has much to offer in that respect.
(Paul M. Weyrich is chairman and
CEO of the Free Congress Foundation.)
