On the rocks

Over the years since 2001 when Pakistan became a partner of the United States in the 'war on terror' its territory and people have been targets of the 'friendly fire' from across the border. In the name of targeting suspected Taliban hideouts and gatherings the firing, shelling and aerial bombardments have been resorted to by the forces on the other side of Pak-Afghan border, causing wanton death and destruction.
The Pakistan side, which before the February 18 elections meant the army high command, either over-looked the attacks or owned them as its own handiwork - much to the chagrin of the public who generally knew the truth in the matter. With Pervez Musharraf's removed from the top slot of the Pak Army things are no more the same.
Not only the newly elected government has initiated a series of peace negotiations with the local Taliban but the troops too are making new adjustments with the people of areas they are camping. As a result, a peace accord has already materialised in Swat Valley and a substantial number of 'prisoners of war' have been released both by militants and by the government.
The most noticeable contribution the ongoing peace-making negotiations have made to overall state of peace and security, however, is the considerable reduction in the incidence of suicide bombing. But, somehow the emerging scenario does not fit into the anti-terrorism strategy of the US-led Nato high command, which has put on ground in Afghanistan some 40,000 troops in its first-ever out-of-Europe expedition.
The attack on the Pakistani post of Gora Parai, in Mohmand Agency on Tuesday night, killing 11 personnel of the Frontier Constabulary and twice that number of civilians - amidst reports of continuing violation of Pakistani airspace by the Nato aircraft and a missile attack at Angur Adda in South Waziristan Agency - is the latest reflection of the growing divergence now besetting the partnership that the Musharraf dispensation had embraced.
As to how the partners in the war on terrorism look to the future of their co-operation the differing, if not conflicting, accounts of the Gora Parai incident and the reactions broadcast by the US and Nato sources, Pakistan government, its army spokesman and the Taliban offer some solid clues.
The US State Department has regretted the "reported loss of life" but insists" our troops were defending themselves against a hostile act, which they have the right to do".
The Kabul-based coalition says it had 'informed' Pakistani side that its troops had come under fire from "anti-Afghan" forces in a wooded area near the post which were identified by unmanned drone aircraft and "eliminated" with the help of artillery fire and close-air support. Pakistan's government has lodged protest with the US government for the attack, described by the ISPR as "cowardly and unprovoked" which "hit(s) at the very basis of co-operation" in the war on terror.
The Taliban say they foiled an attempt by the coalition forces to occupy a mountain top in the Pakistani territory. The incident came up in the parliament also: while in the National Assembly Prime Minister Gilani said his government would take a stand for sovereignty, dignity and self-respect of Pakistan, Senator Khurshid Ahmad claimed that the coalition forces crossed the border and occupied a post.
Given that truth is the first casualty of war one would never know what actually happened but what is there on the ground to see for all are the bodies of some 36 people killed in the attack on Gora Parai, followed by mortar attack on Angur Adda and continuing drone flights over most of the tribal belt of Pakistan.
Simply stated, the Pakistani territory was invaded by the coalition forces, an action, which tends to mark a shift in the direction of war on terror. As the newly elected government sets about initiating peace parleys with militants the US-led coalition raises the ante that dialogue with "terrorists" would strengthen them both in Pakistan and Afghanistan.
In fact, the Western propaganda against the peace parleys is on the crescendo; the latest being the Rand report which alleged that the Taliban are getting active support from the Frontier Constabulary and Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI). Consequent to the electoral defeat of the main architect of Pakistan's partnership in the 'war on terror', President Pervez Musharraf, a change in the policy on this costly business was bound to take place.
Now that a shift in the Pakistani stance is underway the US-led coalition feels jilted. That calls for a review of the partnership to harmonise it with new realities. Pakistan is of course opposed to terrorism in all its manifestations but it would be unrealistic to expect its elected government to follow the track set in place by an unelected ruler, especially when he lost his cause to the forces committed to a change of everything he stood for.