Reviewing anti-terrorism policy

Last Sunday, a residential mud compound in the suburbs of Wana, South Waziristan, was attacked by a US plane. Security sources put the casualty figures as nine dead and same number injured. But the locals say some 20 people were killed.
As to who were among the casualties, the accounts also differ: while some said they included Arab "foreigners", the others insisted they were Uzbeks and Punjabis. Military spokesman Major General Athar Abbas conceded the incident had happened but clarified that Pakistan forces were not involved and he could not say who had carried out the strike.
However, no such confusion persisted about the incident on Wednesday when five shells fired from across the Afghan border fell on a house near Miranshah, killing two children and two women. In this case as usual the coalition forces spokesman in Kabul admitted launching what he called a precision-guided strike on a militant compound.
The government of Pakistan was notified immediately following the strike, he said, adding it was not the first time that the coalition forces had responded to an "immediate threat across the border". "Every time we do we clear that with Pakistani authorities". Very honest of the coalition forces spokesman, but every time they came raiding Pakistan territory we owed up their bombing as our own handiwork. When their predators killed some 80-plus madrassa students in Bajaur Agency in 2006 we said the carnage was consequent to our operation.
That unrealistic approach persisted as we invariably attributed killings, mostly of innocent civilians, in aerial bombings and missile attacks by the US-led coalition forces to the militants' lack of expertise in making bombs resulting in explosions at their hideouts.
But a change from the normal appears to be in the making, with Inter-Services Public Relations (ISPR) head making a strong protest with officials of the coalition forces over the Wednesday strike. He promised to follow up his protest with "further action" after receiving their explanation, and also hinted at taking up the matter at the tripartite meeting of military officials of Pakistan, Afghanistan and US. With the change of command of the Pak Army, a reappraisal of the so-called war on terror was expected, and that seems to be now taking place.
The confrontationist posturing between the tribal militants and security forces, of course, remains but of late a noticeable reduction in clashes between them is clearly detectable. The Taliban leadership is apparently sticking to its declaration of ceasefire, so much so that it has disowned the recent Jirga bombing in Darra Adamkhel, suggesting that some other players too may be active in sustaining the incidence of terrorism in Pakistan.
Perhaps, then there is the need to revisit the fine print of the agreement under which Pakistan had accepted the unenviable role as an ally of the United States to wage war on terrorism.
Over the past few years, the balance of obligations in this war seems to be shifting against Pakistan, so much so that, to quote a frustrated President Musharraf, such unilateral actions as witnessed on Wednesday, would fall in the definition of 'invasion'. It is unbelievable that Pakistan had envisioned a situation that its territory will be invaded following a "creditable, reliable intelligence of militant threat" being available with Kabul-based coalition forces headquarters.
The imperative requiring review by the Pakistani authorities of the cooperation with the coalition forces in Afghanistan stems also from the emerging political situation in Pakistan and the cavalier attitude exhibited by the US presidential hopefuls. No doubt the new coalition leadership of Pakistan is committed to fighting terrorism but it has clearly underscored the need to redefine 'terrorism' and promised to tackle this menace by employing a multi-dimensional approach.
It has invariably spoken in favour of opening a dialogue with the militants. But, contrastingly, the emerging American leadership is accusing Pakistan of lacking in cooperation to fight international terrorism. Going by the US presidential candidates' utterances one gets the impression that they doubt Pakistan's commitment and would like to take unilateral action if and when needed. There is also this high-decibel discussion in American circles about the safety and security of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal.
From the Pakistani perspective the US policy has been hijacked by anti-Pakistan lobby. In fact, time has come that Pakistan government must review the terms and conditions of the UN resolution that binds it to war on terror. Of course, should it opt to unilaterally pull out from this obligation, it would face a barrage of international sanctions and denials, both economic and diplomatic. But it definitely has the right to review this commitment, given that the new leadership won elections on the pledge to depart from Musharraf's policies in order to harmonise them with emerging ground realities.