The Americans have suddenly decided to stop publicly pressuring Pakistan to find Osama bin Laden. Talking to the ABC News, the other day, regarding the whereabouts of the world's most wanted terrorist, Defence Secretary Robert Gates admitted that "it's been years" since the US has had any credible intelligence on the subject.
He went on to say, "we don't know for a fact where Osama bin Laden is. If we did, we'd go get him." In a separate interview, US National Security Adviser General James Jones (Retd) offered a plausible estimate. He said that bin Laden is "sometimes on the Pakistani side of the border, sometimes on the Afghan side of the border." That is what Pakistan has been trying to tell the Americans for a long time. Yet, they kept insisting that bin Laden was in Pakistan.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the opposite to what Gates now maintains when she met a group of journalists in Lahore, less than two months ago. She was emphatic, in fact accusatory, in her remarks about al Qaeda's presence in Pakistan since 2002 as she averred "they [Pakistanis] know it, and can get them if they want." When her remarks created an uproar in Pakistan, the White House issued a statement to back her words.
Gates also said something important vis-à-vis Pakistan's other concerns. He told the interviewer that the US would not pursue Taliban leaders inside Pakistan. He was even respectful as he added, "Pakistan is a sovereign government, and we are in partnership with them. I think, at this point, it's up to the Pakistani military to deal with this problem." That surely is a welcome change of tone, though uncharacteristic of American officials' usual conceited, 'we know best' attitude.
What could be the reason? One could be that the US has undergone a leadership change from George W. Bush's arrogant, unilateralist approach to Barack Obama's civilised, conciliatory, and nuanced style - though it has taken the official Americans a while to adapt. Obama seems to be conscious of the fact that no nation, big or small, likes to be treated with disrespect. And hence treating an ally as a partner, rather than an errand boy can help achieve better results.
Nowhere is this approach is needed more than in the case of Pakistan, which is pivotal to his country finding a face-saving exit from its Afghanistan imbroglio. The other reason, perhaps, is a new democratic Pakistan. It is no longer possible for the government to give unqualified support to America's campaign in Afghanistan and fight its spillover effects in this country, if it is seen to be doing so at America's behest.
Clinton obtained a sense of what the people thought of her country's policies during her recent getting-to-know visit to Pakistan. Apparently, the briefing she gave her president on her return home, during his Afghan strategy review deliberations, has something to do with the change of attitude in Washington. Still, it would be silly to think that there is a substantive shift in policy towards Pakistan.
The hard part is yet to unfold. A recent report emanating from Washington revealed that the White House had given the go-ahead to its military to carry out Special Operations and, also to intensify Predator drone strikes against the Taliban and al Qaeda targets on Pakistani territory. Given the context, General Jones remarks that his country would not pursue Taliban leaders inside Pakistan are indicative of a rethink about the boots-on-the-ground proposal.
Not because Washington wants to defer to local sensitivities, but because it would be counterproductive. Neither the military, nor the people would accept it. Special Operations incursions are certain to cause a massive public opinion backlash, undermining the government's credibility, and hence its ability to fight its own version of the Taliban.
As a matter of fact, the US has tried that option in the past. In September 2008 it launched a ground attack in South Waziristan's Angoor Adda area, killing 15 people, including women and children. The incident elicited an angry response from the government and the public, with the National Assembly issuing a condemnatory resolution. The second time, American helicopters tried a repeat performance, they were forced to turn tail. Any new attempt in the present tension-filled atmosphere is sure to backfire.
The US has said that the surge in Afghanistan is meant to pressure Afghan Taliban to come to the negotiating table. Pakistan is rightly worried that it would drive Taliban and al Qaeda activists to our side of the border. That, in turn, will increase the frequency and ferocity of drone strikes, acting as fuel to the fire of an already inflamed public opinion.
There is no denying that the drone is a highly efficient and effective new weapon of war. But its use by Americans on Pakistani soil is counterproductive. Drone strikes have been creating much public outcry on grounds of sovereignty impingement, and the 'collateral damage' that has claimed hundreds of innocent lives. The US, therefore, must rethink its present policy to accept our demand that we should be given the drone technology, or at least a shared control.
Some might raise the question, if Pakistan gets the technology would it be able to stop collateral damage? The answer is, yes. For, in order to carry out drone strikes, those managing the machines must have accurate intelligence. True, the drones have the ability to track their targets in real time and fire missiles to take them out. But it is also true that a vital element in identifying the targets is human intelligence, at which Pakistan has an advantage over its American counterparts.
Hence, our forces can prevent the killing of innocent civilians. Then, there is also the unsavoury reality that Americans tend to be casual about causing loss of human life as long as the lives at stake belong to those other than their own.
When our own people are in control, they would be more careful. Innocent people still might get killed, but in far smaller numbers. That would help Washington, as well, to lessen some of the anti-Americanism these attacks generate. This can happen only if the US' new stance is to find reflection in practical policy matters. Only time will tell whether the change is genuine, or it is for the sake of appearances only.
[email protected]
Comments
Comments are closed.