[nukkad] 2002 Yearend: Pakistan's changes with U.S.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
I believe in God, only I spell it Nature.
-Frank Lloyd Wright, architect (1867-1959)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------



2002 Yearend: Pakistan's changes with U.S. 
By Anwar Iqbal
UPI South Asian Affairs Analyst
>From the International Desk
Published 12/11/2002 8:50 PM
View printer-friendly version


(Part of UPI's Special Report reviewing 2002 and looking ahead to 2003)

WASHINGTON, DC (UPI) -- As the year 2002 nears end, Pakistan's relations
with the United States once again seem to be passing through a defining
phase. The next few months will unravel whether Pakistan remains an
American ally or is once again pushed out of Washington's circle of
friends.

A close U.S. ally during the Cold War, Pakistan lost its strategic
importance as a key outpost against communism after the Soviet withdrawal
from Afghanistan in 1989.

The Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks in the United States, however,
brought Pakistan back on the central stage. Asked to join the U.S.-led
war against terrorism, Pakistan dumped its former Taliban allies and came
over to the Americans, providing military bases to U.S. troops for
operations into Afghanistan.

But the Pakistanis have been concerned that once this war is over, the
Americans will again abandon them. In his recent book, "Bush at War," the
Washington Post's Bob Woodward points out that at a meeting in New York
in November 2002, President Pervez Musharraf shared this fear with
President George W. Bush.

"Bush fixed his gaze," Woodward wrote, and quoted the president as saying
to Musharraf, "'Tell the Pakistani people that the president of the
United States looked you in the eye and told you we wouldn't do that.'"

So far, the Bush administration has continued to support Pakistan despite
strong internal pressure to review its relationship with this Muslim
nation of 140 million people.

But unfortunately, Pakistan's friendship with the United States remains a
one-issue relationship. Pakistan is America's friend because Washington
needs Islamabad's assistance to fight the Taliban and al Qaida fugitives
hiding in its tribal belt and the neighboring areas of Afghanistan.

Once the hunt for al Qaida is over, Pakistan will lose the only issue
that ties it to the United States. So far efforts to expand this
relationship to other areas have not been very fruitful.

Pakistan's attempt to become a major exporter of textiles to the United
States is resisted by the powerful textile lobby in the American South.
Instead, its American allies have urged Pakistan to diversify its exports
but one year is too short a time to do so.

Similarly, the Bush administration's efforts to encourage American
businessmen to invest in Pakistan have not been very fruitful either.
Pakistan may be a key U.S. ally, but it still is a country with a dismal
law-and-order record. And businessmen, American or others, are always
reluctant to invest their money in a country where they do not feel safe.

Commenting on the law-and-order situation in Pakistan, Washington Post
columnist Jim Hoagland recently wrote: "This nuclear-armed country is in
part ungoverned, in part ungovernable." Such comments, coupled with
reports of attacks on American personnel and interests, do not encourage
investment.

"We have already made a lot of progress since September last year," says
Pakistan Finance Minister Shaukat Aziz while arguing that his country
needs some more time to overcome the remaining problems.

But there are people in the United States, particularly in the news
media, who oppose giving more time to Pakistan. The media, Congress and
the Bush administration all have elements that see Pakistan as a country
fast losing its usefulness as an ally. The media are questioning
Pakistan's commitment to fight terrorism. A congressman is moving a bill
in the House of Representatives, urging it to impose sanctions on
Pakistan for allegedly providing nuclear assistance to North Korea. He
claims that 30 other congressmen also support his move.

External pressure is also having an impact. Russian President Vladimir
Putin's recent statement that Pakistan is not capable of protecting its
nuclear weapons also has hurt Islamabad.

Putin's statement comes at a time when the American press is already
blaming Pakistan for sharing nuclear technology with North Korea in
return for Korean missiles. And Pakistan's denials have not suppressed
speculation in the media about Islamabad's alleged nuclear ties with
Pyongyang.

India's complaint that Pakistan is still sending militants into Kashmir
also has eroded Islamabad's image in Washington.

And the situation inside the country is not helping either. The victory
of an anti-American religious alliance -- Muttahida Majlis-i-Amal -- in
the Oct. 10 parliamentary elections has had an unsettling effect in the
United States. Pakistan's efforts to present MMA as a force that can be
co-opted in the mainstream does not sound very effective when MMA leaders
regularly issue anti-American statements.

There seems to be no realization in Pakistan that its uneven friendship
with the world's sole superpower is passing through a critical stage.
Although the U.S. government still considers Pakistan an important ally
in the war against terrorism, the media and other instruments play a key
role in shaping policies in a democratic society.

Pakistan's public image has already changed drastically since Sept. 11,
2001, when Islamabad was warmly welcomed back into the American camp.
What Islamabad faces in Washington now are the new realities of a
changing relationship. It is not a coincidence that when an Israeli hotel
was bombed in Kenya last week, Pakistanis were among the first suspects
to be arrested. When France launched a campaign against the al Qaida
suspects, there were several Pakistanis among those held.

Although the Pakistanis held in Paris were later released and the Kenyans
say they are not sure if the Pakistanis they are holding were involved in
the attack, the arrests indicate another sad aspect of Pakistan's
worsening image abroad. Officially, Pakistan is not on the list of the
countries classified as "sponsors of terrorism" by the U.S. State
Department. Unofficially, whenever a terrorist attack takes places
anywhere in the world, Pakistanis are automatically seen as suspects.

Reports in the U.S. news media -- including such mainstream newspapers as
The New York Times and The Washington Post -- often say that people
within the Pakistani government, particularly the military intelligence,
still sympathize with the Taliban and al Qaida. Pakistan's routine
denials are not always quoted.

While the State Department says that there are no religious extremists in
the new government in Pakistan, newspapers and television channels never
tire of pointing out that MMA controls a key northern province bordering
Afghanistan and can force the fragile central government to share power
with it in Islamabad as well.

In a recent article, United Press International Editor at Large Arnaud de
Borchgrave pointed out that there were "several Taliban tutors" among the
MMA parliamentarians. In another article, he complained that "friends and
protectors" of Osama bin Laden were back in business "under the watchful
eyes of President Pervez Musharraf."

Pulitzer Prize-winning New York Times columnist Tom Friedman recently
expressed frustration at the Bush administration's continued support to
Pakistan. He wrote: "Pakistan has a nuclear bomb. Al-Qaida is full of
Pakistanis and Saudis and they get visits to the White House."

On Oct. 24, Washington Post's a two-time Pulitzer Prize winner Jim
Hoagland called Pakistan "the most dangerous place on earth today."

"Pakistan's role as a clandestine supplier shatters the Bush
administration's efforts to paint that country as a flawed but
well-meaning member of the coalition against terror. Pakistan today is
the most dangerous place on Earth, in large part because the (Bush)
administration does not understand the forces it is dealing with there
and has no policy to contain them," he wrote.

Since September this year, when the New York Times first reported alleged
nuclear links between Pakistan and North Korea, the attacks on Pakistan
have increased.

Pakistan is once again seen as a country that may become the world's
first failed nuclear-state.

The news media predict that the current Pakistani administration may
collapse under internal and external pressure. If the government fails,
they argue, religious fanatics will seize nuclear weapons and use them
against the West to avenge the Taliban's defeat in Afghanistan.

They also say that most Taliban and al Qaida fighters have fled to
Pakistan after their defeat in Afghanistan and the country has now turned
into a regional hub for terrorism. They also call it a major source of
heroin smuggled to the West.

The nuclear controversy involving North Korea is not over yet. Secretary
of State Colin Powell has already warned that "there will be
consequences" if Pakistan continued its links with Pyongyang. While
telling reporters that Musharraf has given him "400 percent assurance"
that there will be no such link with the so-called rogue state, Powell
did not deny press reports that Pakistan had cooperated with North Korea
in the past. The Bush administration, he said, now was more concerned
about the future.

But the future does not appear very bright either. Pro-Indian lawmaker
Frank Pallone has threatened to raise the nuclear issue in Congress once
the Iraq conflict is over and will ask the Bush administration to take
punitive action against Pakistan.

Attacks on religious minorities, particularly Christians, is another
issue that causes bad feelings against Pakistan. In a recent article, the
Washington Times, which represents America's influential religious right,
pointed out that Christians, of both Pakistani and foreign origin, are
routinely slaughtered in Pakistan.

Gone are the days when President Musharraf was one of America's closest
Muslim friends, second only to Afghanistan's Hamid Karzai. Now, at least
in the U.S. news media, Musharraf is seen as a man who is unable to
deliver on his promises.

The American media claim that there are people, both in the civil and
military establishments in Pakistan, who sympathize with the Taliban and
al Qaida and Musharraf has no control over them.

The American press also routinely advises all administrations not to form
long-standing relationships with dictators and military rulers. 

While urging Washington to distance itself from Musharraf, the New York
Times recently wrote: "If Mr. Bush is not careful, Washington will be
mopping up for years from the inevitable foreign policy disasters that
come of befriending autocrats who maintain a stranglehold on their own
people."

Unlike, the media, both the State Department and the White House have
been supportive of Musharraf and have often described him as a close
friend America would "like to continue to work with."

However, there's one issue that irks the U.S. administration as well --
Kashmir. Every time the Kashmir issue is raised at a State Department
briefing, U.S. officials point out that despite Musharraf's assurance,
infiltrations into the Indian-held Kashmir have continued.

Those who regularly attend these briefings can clearly see that the
United States does not endorse Pakistan's position on Kashmir. For
instance, Pakistan has rejected the recently held state elections in
Indian-held Kashmir. The United States has endorsed those elections as a
step in the right direction.

After last week's terrorist attack on a Hindu temple in Jammu, the State
Department urged New Delhi to continue the process it has initiated by
holding state elections in Kashmir.

Faced with such strong pressure from its own media and lobbyists, how
long will the Bush administration continue to support Pakistan? The
administration says that it will support Pakistan for as long as it takes
to stabilize this strategically important country. But others disagree.

The Indians, who have fought three wars with their nuclear rival, argue
that Pakistan is already a failing state and that the Americans should
not try to rescue it.

The Pakistanis say that they have made a lot of progress since re-joining
the U.S.-led alliance against terrorism. Given more time, they will be
able to stabilize their troubled nation. 

Copyright © 2002 United Press International
  
View printer-friendly version
   
 
 
  
Copyright © 2002 United Press International. All rights reserved. 



                    ##     #####  #    #  #
                   #  #      #    #    #  #
                  #    #     #    #    #  #
                  ######     #    #    #  #
                  #    #     #    #    #  #
                  #    #     #     ####   ######
     

====================================================================== 
      People who feel good about themselves produce good results.
======================================================================  


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To join/leave, use the form at: http://www.mumbai-central.com/nukkad/#options
This list is archived at: http://www.mumbai-central.com/nukkad/archive.html