• PAGE ONE
• INDEX
• HOME

Pakistan: Exploiting US dilemma

Rasheeda Bhagat

`PAKISTAN cornered', screamed a newspaper headline on Sunday morning. One wanted to scoff at this interpretation, knowing full well that the tragedy in the US, and the Saudi dissident Osama bin Laden being the prime suspect, would only come as a breather to a Pakistan already cornered.

As the events of the day unfolded, Pakistan's crafty military ruler, Gen Pervez Musharraf, began to see the US asking for its in ``smoking out'' Osama bin Laden as a huge opportunity.

Pakistan's initial response condemning the attack and saying it has always been against terrorism in all forms, came from a nervous-looking Gen Musharraf who appeared on both CNN and BBC before India's leaders did. Obviously chagrined Indians watching Ge n Musharraf's condemnation of terrorism wanted to ask him why he dared not call the terror attacks of September 11 acts of jehad -- the term he uses to define terrorism in Kashmir.

It took hardly a day for the General to regain his composure and, as the US sought Pakistan's co-operation in hunting out Osama bin Laden and not sparing the Taliban-ruled Afghanistan which was sheltering him, he became much more confident. Even as Gen M usharraf promised the US his country's ``total co-operation'' in its ``action against terrorism'', worried Pakistani journalists and analysts appearing on BBC and CNN spelt out the opposition Pakistan's ruler would face at home.

With the rest of the Islamic world, Pakistan too had its share of people not only justifying but also celebrating the tragic events in the US. For the Islamic fundamentalists in Pakistan, Bin Laden is a hero and quite a few of them, appearing on various television channels, endorsed this sentiment. The obvious question, then, is: How will the General convince his people and justify his pledge of ``wholehearted co-operation'' with the US in its efforts to bring to justice the perpetrators of the crime?

Gen Musharraf seems to have achieved at least part of his objective -- though the Ulemas (the clergy) may not be convinced, and perhaps never will be -- by taking different sections into confidence on the Hobson's choice he and the nation face at the mom ent.

He has also cleverly converted his dilemma into an economic opportunity for the nation, which is literally at the doorstep of bankruptcy. Lift the economic sanctions, is one demand. Reschedule the debt with the IMF/World Bank, is another. But, apart from these economic demands, what is bound to pacify the agitated religious fundamentalists of Pakistan is the reported demand that the US should explicitly refrain from involving India or Israel in the launching of operations to track down Osama bin Laden a nd punish the Taliban, which has been giving him shelter.

There are also reports that Gen Musharraf has demanded from the US that once its immediate mission to hunt down the perpetrators of the attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon is accomplished, it should play a more direct role in solving the K ashmir problem. This is certainly a clever way of approaching a superpower that has of late been leaning towards India and warning Pakistan not to aid and abet militancy in Kashmir!

The American administration, which so desperately needs Pakistan's help in getting bin Laden, is obviously going to shower its munificence on the country. On Kashmir, it will obviously choose to remain quiet, as it will be in no mood to upset India, whic h is also bending over backward to give the US all help and support in its moves against bin Laden.

Gen Musharraf's shrewdness as an administrator is evident in the manner in which his Foreign Minister, Mr Abdus Sattar, paraphrased the country's promise to the US. He made it clear that Pakistan will only be bound by ``any UN Security Council resolution s on this issue''. What is said between the lines is that Pakistan does not have a choice, but if a group of nations launches a hunt against the terrorists responsible for the attacks, Pakistan can hardly be expected to take on the might of the world's p owerful nations and stay out of the group.

In this background, it is interesting to take a look at what the Pakistani media is saying. One of Pakistan's most well-known and respected columnists, Mr Ardeshir Cowasjee, in his Sunday column in the daily Dawn, wrote: ``Our President-General, so to sp eak, now on the carpet, is capable of seeing us through this rather tricky patch. He must remember that all leadership demands a price and that the Americans still follow the solemn admonition of their first President, George Washington, delivered in his farewell address: `It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world.'

``Our help has been sought and it must be given. By their own admission, American memory is short. Today's friends of necessity become tomorrow's enemies. What we want, what we badly need, is to be asked upfront. We can do better than Hosni Mubarak, who by nimble adept footwork had Egypt's $9 billion written off. Pervez Musharraf is now a statesman and not a commando. He must unequivocally endorse the belated words of Atal Bihari Vajpayee: `We must strike at the roots of the system that breeds terrorism . We must stamp out the infrastructure that imparts the perverse ideological poison by which the terrorist is fired up. We must hold governments wholly accountable for the terrorism that originates from their countries. In other words, to get at the terr orists the world community must get at their organisations, at those who condition, finance, train, equip and protect them.'''

But the hawkish Mr Ayaz Amir, in his column in the same daily, asked how the lives of Palestinian children killed by the Israelis are less precious than that of Americans. Conceding that the choices before Pakistan are limited, he warned that: ``In any e vent, we must look to our dignity -- or what, after our perennial begging bowl, is left of it. While there can be no question of Pakistan staying aloof from any concerted effort against 'global terrorism' -- never mind the fact that apart from being the sole superpower, the US is also the world's leading lexicographer, giving its own spin to words and their meaning -- Pakistan should allow no one to walk over it.

``The manner in which we delivered Ramzi Yousef and Aimal Kansi to the US was less that of a sovereign country and more that of a vassal state doing the bidding of a distant godfather. What did we get for our pains? There are just so many blows our batte red dignity can take. While doing the right thing we should take care not to be stampeded into ill-considered acquiescence.''

The Frontier Post, published from Peshawar, where sympathy for the Taliban is much more evident, warned the General in its editorial that support to any US-led initiative is bound to bring down the ``wrath of the Taliban and their local supporters on its head. Pakistan has to play its cards coolly, and not be rushed into any precipitate commitment to Washington which could prove highly damaging in the long run.''

An editorial in another English daily, The Nation, examining the dilemma before the country said: ``Damned if it helps the US, not only by the Taliban but also by the large number of Taliban supporters in the country, and damned if it does not, because t he US, already suspicious of Pakistan's disclaimers of support of the Taliban, would lump Pakistan and Afghanistan together and act accordingly.

``The threat from the Taliban that it would wreak vengeance on Pakistan, combined with the threat of some religious parties within Pakistan, should not be under-estimated. There is, therefore, a price tag attached to the support for a military action by the US. All those concerned, including the US, should read that tag well.''

What is left unsaid here is that the US, after reading ``that tag well'', better toe the line.

(Feedback to this article can be sent to rasheeda@thehindu.co.in)