Sharply underscored by a lingering mismatch of perceptions, the Pak-US relationship experiences periodic bouts of accusations and counter-accusations. The latest bout happened over the weekend in the wake of Benazir Bhutto's assassination when at a meeting at the White House the Bush administration discussed the possibility of widening the CIA-targeted operations in the tribal areas of Pakistan.
According to The New York Times, the United States government is considering to give more powers to the Central Intelligence Agency to conduct, with the help of military, "aggressive covert operations" inside the tribal region. The proposal is believed to have been triggered by US intelligence reports that al Qaeda and the Taliban are intensifying efforts to destabilise the Musharraf government.
Given that the threat was so acute it was believed that 'both President Musharraf and Pakistan's new military leadership were likely to give the US more latitude', the newspaper added. Islamabad has strongly reacted to the report, with Inter-Service Public Relations (ISPR) Directorate chief Major General Waheed Arshad saying.
"It is not up to the US administration; it is Pakistan's government who is responsible for this country". Foreign Office spokesman Mohammad Sadiq has described the report speculative and said such an action would be unacceptable. Last August also, winds of disagreement buffeted the Pak-US relationship when chairman of US Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Joseph R. Biden, disclosed President Bush's "consultations" with senior officials to neutralise Pakistan's nuclear facilities if Musharraf regime fell.
These consultations were believed to have stemmed from a Foreign Policy-Centre for American Progress survey of 120 experts' opinion. Earlier that month President Bush had signed into law the 9/11 Commission Recommendations Bill, which, in part, requires him to confirm that Islamabad is making progress in the fight against militants in order that assistance be released.
Pakistan's consternation over Bush administration's misplaced perceptions is getting increasingly compounded by the wild comments that the presidential hopefuls make with abandon during their campaign speeches and interviews.
While Pakistan's commitment to fighting terrorism remains suspect in their eyes, they quite often also question Islamabad's ability to protect Pakistan's nuclear assets from falling into wrong hands.
The latest to join the chorus is Democrat candidate Hillary Clinton. In her bid to outwit other hopefuls she says if elected she would consider raising a joint US-Britain task force to protect Pakistan's nuclear assets - while others have not relented from 'sending troops after the al Qaeda and Taliban militants'.
In Hillary Clinton's words: At present Islamabad's nuclear arsenal is considered secure, "but there isn't any guarantee, especially given the political turmoil going on inside Pakistan."
Of course, the Pakistan Foreign Office spokesman has rejected Clinton's prognosis, asserting Pakistan alone is and will be responsible for the security of its nuclear assets.
Since the clamour from the United States about the security of Pakistan's nuclear assets refuses to die down, a cynical point of view insists that the assassination of Benazir Bhutto should be looked into as part of the perspective that certain powers would want a destabilised Pakistan to justify its dispossession of the nuclear arsenal.
Pakistan and the United States have had warm, fruitful bilateral relations for more than half a century, though presently these have acquired a pronounced reinforcement thanks to their joint war against terrorism. Pakistan's share in this effort is significantly far larger than any other country's, and so are the risks it courted in terms of internal security.
But, there is a scant recognition of Pakistan's contribution, as the 'do more' chant does not cease. Add to this, the so-called specialists' fear that its nuclear assets can fall into wrong hands, and one is deeply disappointed. While we see a rather sharp focus of the western media on these two issues, we also detect that the Pak-US relationship is acquiring an unduly military-specific perspective.
The role that politics and diplomacy should play in strengthening bilateralism seems to be relegated behind the military considerations. That is not a helpful development. There is an urgent need that political and diplomatic relations between Pakistan and the United States are brought at par with military relationship.
That American hopefuls' talk of striking inside Pakistan our mission in Washington should their ear to the ground. Most probably, they need to be appropriately briefed by our diplomats. Meanwhile, the US administration should go slow on its military option; it is not working anywhere for Washington.
Comments
Comments are closed.