The Cheney visit

US Vice President Dick Cheney's visit here early this week had all the elements of a perfect paradox. It was unannounced but very much expected, in that it brought to a stunning climax what was being cooked and dished out from Washington over the past many months.
Various American sources, that include generals, politicians, think-tank analysts and journalists, had been tilting at Pakistan for 'not doing enough' to stem the rising tide of Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan. Such was the intensity of this do-more mantra that even when the foreign forces crossed the international border in the name of punishing Taliban militants Pakistan looked the other way. It even owned up the foreign aggression a couple of times.
It was, therefore, not surprising that the New York Times set the stage for the unannounced Cheney visit, by surmising that he may be delivering President Bush's "tough" message that the Democrat-Congress may suspend aid to Pakistan if Islamabad did not "do more". Dick Cheney did exactly that, but perhaps for the first time, received a matching response from President Pervez Musharraf.
As they met in the presence of senior officials from both sides, the Pakistani leader told him point blank that defeating terrorism and curbing the militant activities in Afghanistan is a collective responsibility of the international community. Pakistan has done the maximum in the fight against terrorism, President Musharraf told Cheney. He also expressed concern on the proposed discriminatory legislation regarding US aid to Pakistan, stressing the need not to be swayed by biased western media reporting. But a careful reading of the statement issued by the Pakistan government clearly brings out the mismatch of perceptions that obtain between Islamabad and Washington.
Vice President Cheney, while "appreciating Pakistan's pivotal role" in the fight against terrorism, expressed his government's apprehensions of regrouping of al Qaeda in the tribal areas. He also "expressed serious US concerns on the intelligence being picked up of an impending Taliban and al Qaeda spring offensive against the allied forces in Afghanistan". If that was not enough to demolish the assiduously built edifice of perceptional commonalty, one should hear the US intelligence chief who now says that Osama Bin Laden and Ayman Al-Zawahari both are in Pakistan, preparing for the spring offensive.
Picking on each other by the alliance partners suggests that the situation on the ground is getting out of control. Given the history of guerrilla wars gaining heat at the melting of snow, a surge in the activity of Taliban cannot be ruled out. But that is not the only reality on the ground; it is a fact also that the student militia is now operating in areas beyond their traditional strongholds in south and south-east of Afghanistan, away from the border with Pakistan.
Only the other day they struck at the gate of Bagram Airbase where Dick Cheney was hunkering for the night. Can a guerrilla outfit operate in an unfriendly environment? Is it likely that the Taliban's operations against foreign forces are acquiring the proportions of a national resistance? As the US Administration considers accusing Pakistan for all that is going wrong in Afghanistan, it should try to comprehend the logic of events as they unfold on the ground. One should not forget that the Taliban are the children of those very Mujahideen who delivered an unthinkable victory over the much-dreaded Soviet Union on a platter to the West.
It would not be entirely improper, therefore, that the United States and its allies should talk to the Taliban. Quite often the warring sides bring their conflict to an end by signing peace agreements, as Pakistan did in Waziristan and the British, too, in Musa Kila. Pakistan, as a neighbour of Afghanistan - a contentious border separating them and over three million Afghan refugees criss-crossing it at will - cannot be expected to have perceptions completely identical to those entertained by the United States.
They would always have a degree of variance besetting their relationship. That calls for diplomacy to play its role; not using the diplomatic channel would be unfair to Pakistanis in general and President Musharraf in particular whose assertion that he is in the line of fire is uncontestable.