Author: Irfan Husain
Publication: Dawn
Date: August 11, 2007
URL: http://www.dawn.com/weekly/mazdak/20071108.htm
For years, many Pakistanis had resented being
'abandoned' by the US after the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan. But now
that we are once more allied with the Americans, millions of Pakistanis are
up in arms over the relationship.
As the recent debate in parliament showed,
and as many opinion polls have confirmed, there is a deep and visceral anti-Americanism
at work. Indeed, a cheap way to win an argument is to accuse somebody of being
pro-American. This is similar to the tactics used by the Jewish lobby in the
West to silence critics of Israel by labelling them as anti-Semitic.
I experienced the intensity of these sentiments
when I reluctantly got into an argument at a dinner party recently. Somebody
loudly protested against the increasing American pressure on Pakistan to 'do
more' to eliminate the extremists infesting the tribal belt.
Unable to resist, I pointed out that since
9/11, Pakistan had received nearly $10 billion as aid from Washington in one
form or another. Part of this sum is the billion dollars a year that go to
defray the costs of our military presence and operations on the Afghan border.
"Surely," I argued. "For this
kind of money, the Americans have a right to ask for a quid pro quo."
Another guest (a recently retired ambassador
and an old and dear friend) promptly said my argument reflected a pro-western
mindset. I replied that as an independent country, we were at liberty to refuse
western aid, and then change our policy towards the Taliban. But as long as
we were taking billions of dollars, we were in a contractual agreement to
stick to our side of the bargain.
At this point the exchange grew more heated.
My friend said we did not have to give up any aid, but should do what suited
us best. According to him, when Musharraf performed his famous post-9/11 U-turn,
our foreign office had advised him that he did not need to go along with the
'for us or against us' rhetoric from Washington. As the argument was by now
generating more heat than light, I extricated myself as best as I could.
As a Pakistani, I find the threatening noises
from sundry American public figures demeaning and insulting. Nevertheless,
I do see the problem. We are making a big deal of our sovereignty when the
reality is that it barely exists in the tribal belt along the Afghan border.
In truth, we have never exercised real control
over this international boundary. Neither the tribes on both sides, and nor
successive governments in Kabul, have recognised the reality of the disputed
Durand Line.
For decades, the autonomous status of the
tribal belt has meant a safe haven for smugglers, heroin factories and gunrunners.
The world was largely ignorant of this reality, and even if people had been
aware of what was happening, they couldn't have cared less. The exchequer
lost billions; the country became awash in guns; and millions of Pakistanis
became addicted to heroin. But this was a matter of supreme indifference to
the rest of the world.
However, the anarchy along the border began
to matter when western troops arrived in Afghanistan and became targets for
the Taliban and their supporters. It was soon apparent that these elements
were using Pakistani territory as a base and a safe haven. They could retreat
here after mounting cross-border operations to rest and recuperate, safe in
the knowledge that they could not be followed.
Although Pakistan has some 80,000 troops along
the border, it has been unable to stop this infiltration. Many western voices
accuse us of dragging our feet, and not doing as much as we could. They see
Taliban sympathisers within the Pakistani establishment who make it difficult
to mount effective anti-terrorist operations.
This view will probably be strengthened by
the speech made by the parliamentary defence secretary, retired Major Tanvir
Hussain. Speaking in the recent debate on foreign policy in parliament, he
is reported to have demanded that the government allow jihadis to enter Kashmir
to fight, and to recognise the Taliban. He also accused the CIA of being behind
the spate of terrorist attacks targeting Chinese nationals. He concluded his
speech with this popular statement: "Be it the mountains of Waziristan
or Kashmir, or the plains of Punjab, there should only be one slogan: Al jihad!
Al jihad! Al jihad!"
Considering that this worthy is a member of
the ruling party, one would assume his views are not far removed from the
sentiments of the PML-Q. So when American lawmakers want to make aid conditional
on Pakistan's performance against extremism and terrorism, one can see why
they have introduced this rider. Obviously, it is unpleasant to be tacitly
accused of slackening in this struggle, but we need to understand the context
behind these charges.
Another thing we seem to have lost sight of
in this controversy over recent American statements is that the fight against
extremism is more our fight than the West's. As we saw at Lal Masjid, the
spectre of fundamentalism is the biggest danger to us. Irrespective of whether
we get financial assistance to fight the jihadis or not, it is in Pakistan's
interest to root them out. We cannot live in peace with ourselves or with
our neighbours as long as this threat exists.
In this rush to appear more anti-American
than the next person, we see a peculiar convergence between the left and the
religious right. We have lost our ability to differentiate: any policy emanating
from Washington is bound to be wrong.
But surely things are not so conveniently
black and white. I supported the ouster of the mediaeval Taliban from power
after 9/11, but I marched against the invasion of Iraq, despite my distaste
for Saddam Hussein. Indeed, had Bush not embarked on his mad adventure in
Iraq, he would have had far greater moral authority and military strength
to do the job in Afghanistan.
Sovereignty implies that a state controls
the territory over which its writ extends. By this definition, the tribal
belt is not, strictly speaking, under Islamabad's control. Until this anomaly
is removed through a constitutional amendment, we will continue being flooded
with drugs, guns and terrorists. Blaming the West will not solve our problems.
