The Senate standing committee on foreign relations has adopted a number of resolutions rejecting American threat of incursions on Pakistan territory. The committee met at the Parliament House on Saturday. Mushahid Hussain presided over the meeting, which was attended by Gulshan Syed, S M Zafar, Nisar Ahmed Memon, Muhammad Ali Durrani, Samiul Haq, and Talha Mahmud.
Former foreign secretary Riaz Khokar, Director-General Islamabad strategic studies Shireen Mazari, Nasim Zehra and Lieutenant General Talat Masood also presented their perspective at the Pakistan Senate hearing. After listening to a number of points of view, the committee adopted a consensus resolution that reflected unity of thought.
Every member felt that as an ally of the international community in the campaign against terrorism, Pakistan had gone an extra mile sacrificing nearly 900 of its soldiers, and yet the Americans had threatened of unilateral action.
"This is not acceptable," said the resolution, expressing the will of the parliament as well as sentiments of 160 million people who are "determined to preserve and protect our national sovereignty and territorial integrity." At one point, Mushahid appreciated that the offending American statements had been retracted. Nevertheless, the committee reacted to the proceedings of American senate.
The American senate passed an enactment, with 80 positive against two negative votes, to restrict aid unless President Bush certified that Pakistan was taking appropriate steps to crush Taliban and al Qaeda activities in the tribal areas and several other measures in the social and security sectors. This would now go to the House of Representative for clearance.
In addition, the committee weighed the recent news, published on Saturday, that ammunition and heavy weapons had reached Afghanistan for using it on Pakistan territory. To put an end to ambiguities, Pakistan should stop receiving further American aid, said Senator Gulshan Saeed, a member of the committee. "Our national honour should not permit receiving further money from the Americans; we should stop it."
Zafar argued: "We should reply Americans on the strength of national cohesion." He called the threat of pre-emptive attack on Pakistan as extension of de facto doctrine of carrying out these attacks. "Such attacks would violate our national sovereignty, rule of law and human rights, and we should take practical steps to meet the threat by resolving political problems by achieving national reconciliation."
In this regard, Zafar called for convening an all parties conference; change the use of some terminologies such as 'ghaddar'. He backed the resolution. "The time has come to review our policies with the United States."
In Nisar Memon's view, the Nato had failed badly in Afghanistan and was passing on its failure to Pakistan to raise the bogey of Osama and Zawahiri hiding somewhere in Pakistan tribal areas. Nevertheless, he was against dubbing the US, or any country, as friend or foe. "There is no interest except national interest, and in view of that we don't take on super powers. We should also continue to engage with the Indians."
Dr Shireen Mazari said: "We have not considered the conditions, because it contained a number of actions on the part of Pakistan, such as adopting secular education, and this is practically impossible to act upon. How could we do that; we have to teach religion in schools and educational institutions."
She added, "Our relations with the United States must be based on our national interest. More space has been created for terrorists after 9/11." She said: "Why are we supporting the Americans at this time, because its intentions are all too clear. The US wants to destabilise Pakistan for the sake of constructing a new Middle East; and for dividing Iraq. The Americans will not leave Iraq, retire to its cantonment areas and leave the Iraqis to fight each other."
Riaz Khokar said that at this time there is a big difference between the American view of fighting terrorism. "Pakistan should inform them that we are fighting militancy at our home. There is also a difference between the government and the people for which we must not set our own house on fire by supporting the Americans."
In his view, both the embrace and enmity of the United States was "dangerous". "At this time we need a deep conviction that we are independent in all respects and we should refuse the aid because defending our borders is our responsibility."
Samiul Haq, who is said to have Taliban in his madrassah at Attock, expressed delight with the approach of the standing committee. In 2001, he had enumerated all these factors to the President, before he answered the call of "are you with us or against us?".
After listening to the view, Talha Masud said he felt the proceedings of the committee had already taken a step forward in achieving national consciousness that was urgently needed at the time. Mushahid said that the President took the right decision at that time because after 9/11, USA was behaving like an intoxicated elephant, but right now, the US was speaking like an adversary.
Information Minister Durrani said everyone must respond to this national challenge. The nation would not accept statements they await action and national consensus between the government and political parties. The parliament must debate the issue, he observed.