US-Pakistan relations follow a crazy, roller-coaster path, now rising to dizzy heights, now descending to sinking lows. The former Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee Admiral Mike Mullen would pithily sum these up as ‘vexing yet vital’. Since the Abbottabad raid of May last and the unprovoked US fusillade at Pakistan’s Salala post, killing 24 soldiers in November of the same year, US-Pakistan relations stay critically poised.
Whereas Pakistan for its part cannot risk international isolation, the US/NATO cannot find an easier route for the movement of their war equipment to the operational stores and men. The alternative northern route via Uzbekistan is costlier both in terms of money and more so of time. It can at best be used for the reverse transit of their troops at the end of NATO’s active engagement in Afghanistan by the end of 2014. The good news is that while the transit deadlock continues, a detachment of American Special Forces — even if just two or more — anti-insurgency experts are already in Pakistan to exercise re-engagement with our men.
Furthermore, while Pakistan is discussing the terms of re-engagement with a ‘top’ Pentagon official, the US Assistant Defence Secretary Peter Lavoy is expected to arrive in Islamabad later this week. It’s to be hoped that by the time these lines appear, Mr Lavoy and his Pakistani interlocutors would have worked out arrangements to break the deadlock.
The US/NATO owe Pakistan some real comfort, preferably a straight apology, for the Salala tragedy. It is not just a question of diplomatic accommodation but also a real, pressing condition to assuage the grief and anger of the Pakistan army over the loss of so many innocent lives.
What is reassuring is the constructive approach of the White House to Pakistan for its cooperation with the United States in the war against terror.
Barely four days before the Chicago summit, the White House ‘smothered’ a House bill seeking to place limitations on ‘reimbursements’ to Pakistan, as well as to ‘impose new restrictions’ on the US’s assistance to it. Pakistan was commended for ‘cooperating’ with the United States on “the war against terror, dismantling IED (Improvised Explosive Device) networks and ‘preventing’ nuclear proliferation…”
However, the US Senate would not wait to accuse Pakistan of rapidly moving towards the path leading to a ‘direct confrontation’.
The Senate’s ire was caused by the 33-year sentence awarded to Dr Shakil Afridi by a tribal court (jirga) under the notorious Frontier Crimes Regulations for collaborating with the CIA in the successful event. The Senate saw no ‘basis’ for the arrest of the doctor and the award of a 33-year jail sentence. What might the US itself have done in case it found one of its own citizens collaborating with Pakistan’s ISI like Dr Afridi?
The Kashmir-born US citizen Dr Ghulam Nabi Fai was sentenced to a 2-year jail term for allegedly cooperating with the ISI under the cover of running a seminar PR network for a plebiscite in Kashmir. The CIA viewed him as a foreign-aided agent rather than as a human rights activist.
In a babble of accusations against Pakistan, the lone voice of reason came from the outgoing US Ambassador in Pakistan Cameron P Munter. Ambassador Munter had the courage of conviction to differ with his president’s war tactics, especially his support of the ‘strike-driven’ drone attacks in our tribal areas. According to press reports, President Obama’s ‘focus’ on the drone strikes made it ‘impossible’ to forge new relationships with the Muslim world.
That stood in direct contrast to his last year’s Cairo’s address, advocating mending fences with the Muslim/Islamic world. A peace conference was organised by a human rights organisation in Washington on the ‘Drone Summit’. ‘Killing and Spying by Remote Control’ noted the ‘lethal rise’ in the number of drone strikes under the Obama administration. It is noteworthy that every drone strike launched is to be approved by the commander-in-chief himself.
The New York Times spoke of a ‘top-secret process’ governing the lethal drone strikes ‘overseen’ by Mr Obama himself. He would identify and approve which of the al Qaeda suspects was to be hit, according to a ‘kill list’.
Just about a day before these lines were written, South Waziristan had been under a drone attack, killing and disabling several others in an air blitz going beyond the pre-targeted militants. Reportedly, over a dozen drone strikes took place since the Chicago summit. For the US, however, the killing of Abu Yahya al-Libi, reported to be the al Qaeda number two, must be a matter of great satisfaction. Any post-summit peace process must therefore, resolve the drone issue first and foremost; this is essential to stop violating Pakistan’s sovereignty and taking toll of so many innocent lives. A rough estimate shows that 168 children have been killed by drone strikes.
The US counter-terrorism advisor, John Brenner, author of the cold-blooded Brenner doctrine, admitted for the first time that US drones ‘might have killed civilians’. Brenner would see no distinction between a civilian and a militant. For him and his commander-in-chief, anything that moves on the ground under anything flying is a terrorist, an open licence to kill without identifying the target.
For Pakistan, it is time to fine tune its strategy vis-à-vis its supportive role in the war on terror.
That Pakistan had allowed safe passage to NATO troops and war materials to Afghanistan for a price, and that too for a pittance of $ 250 per truck came as a surprise to most Pakistanis. Now to raise the pittance to a hefty $ 5,000 per vehicle had been neither good manners nor good business.
(Concluded)
The writer is a retired brigadier and can be reached at [email protected]