At the Pakistan-US Track II meeting, Pakistan’s Foreign Minister Khawaja Asif expressed frustration about the trust deficit between the two countries. US Ambassador David Hale, spoke at the inaugural session of the dialogue, stating “We seek a sustained and irreversible effort to achieve an aspiration and commitment made public by Pakistani officials; an end to the use of Pakistan’s soil for attacks on its neighbours.” The word ‘neighbour’ was tricky and undiplomatic on part of the Americans.
Then came the reconciled text of the House and Senate versions of the 2018 National Defence Authorization Act (NDAA-2018), the bill meant to finance the US armed forces. The reconciled version makes $350million available to Pakistan under the CSF contingent upon the Defence Secretary’s certification that Pakistan is taking demonstrable actions against the Haqqani network and Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT). The conditionality was introduced by the Senate.
The Pentagon recently pressured the US Congress to drop a provision linking financial aid to Pakistan to the fight against LeT. The Department of Defence (DoD) prevailed in convincing House members to delink the provision from Pakistan’s fight against LeT, which indicates that there is an understanding of the sensitivity attached to asking Pakistan to fight against a religious group whose main objective is to liberate Muslims in Indian Kashmir and has allegedly attacked India in 2001 and 2008. This shows that DoD understands that asking Pakistan to fight against the enemy of its enemy was not pragmatic.
A review board made up of the judges of the Lahore High Court refused to extend the detention of Jamaat-ud Dawa (JuD) chief Hafiz Mohammad Saeed. Unsurprisingly, the Indians are outraged. The White House has termed his release as “a step in the wrong direction”, which makes sense since Nikki Nimrata Haley wants India to do something to Pakistan (by having India “keep an eye on Pakistan”) not the other way around. So, yes the direction is wrong. The Americans now want the Pakistanis to re-arrest Saeed.
The Department of Defence prevailed in convincing House members to delink the provision of financial aid from Pakistan’s fight against LeT. This may indicate that there the US understands the sensitivity attached to asking this country to fight a group whose main objective is to liberate Muslims in Indian-held Kashmir and that has allegedly attacked New Delhi before. This suggests that the DoD understands that asking Pakistan to fight the enemy of its enemy was not pragmatic
Much has been said about the “do more” mantra. Basically it is the US policymakers’ wish list, which continues to grow longer. The wish list now includes Indian wishes as well. Regardless of whether or not the LeT is a group of nefarious individuals with sinister designs against India, the fact that the Americans are now pressuring the Pakistanis to fight against Indian enemies is quite astounding. Pakistan has officially denied having any links with the group. That is still a better stance than CIA’s favorite ‘plausible deniability’ where it wouldn’t even acknowledge the existence of say the drone program in Pakistan’s tribal areas.
The “do more” mantra speaks volumes about the imperial mindset that likes thumping Pakistan, its ally-cum-punching bag.
The US is basically telling Pakistan to “do more” against a group that kills American soldiers in Afghanistan and “do more” against the enemies of India. It’s like asking the Americans to fight against the Mujahideen-e-Khalq (M.E.K) of Iran or may be to fight against the so called rebel group, which is fighting against the Russian backed Assad in Syria. The rebel group is also called ‘moderate’ fighters, my guess is they probably smile before they kill.
It is amazing to realize the impact language can have on relations between individuals as well as states. Employing different words can alter meanings in mind boggling ways. Tariq Khosa in Dawn’s Op-Ed piece on November 27 said that a “do better” approach would “enhance trust and credibility” between Washington and Islamabad. Khosa also points out that a better use of words could lead to a more cooperative relationship. While I respect Khosa’s opinion, I must say ‘doing better’ won’t bring the desired results either.
The stated aim of the Islamabad-Washington alliance is dismantling terrorism.
In reality, Washington’s “do more” and Islamabad’s “no more”sound more like both sides telling each other to scram. The de facto aim doesn’t seem to be dismantling terror but rather Goliath giving orders and David building the ark before the rain. And it will rain after the Goliath leaves the empires’ graveyard.
If the aim really is ending terrorism, I propose a change in jargon. I will call it the Steve Jobs approach. Jobs never wanted Apple to be the ‘Me Too’ company making the same products only better than others. He made Apple focus on being ‘different’ rather than being ‘better’. So, let’s not “do more” or “do better”. Let’s do it different. Let’s not kill innocent people, let’s not invade countries, let’s not participate in terror. To borrow from Noam Chomsky, let’s not prop up dictatorships, let’s not support neoliberal policies for our selfish aims, let’s not earn hatred. Most importantly, let’s not be aggressive. Aggression is the true father of terrorism. Only then can we see an end to terrorism.
The writer is currently a PhD candidate at the University of Houston, and he teaches political science at the Lone Star College in Houston
Published in Daily Times, December 9th 2017.