(May 28, London, Sri Lanka Guardian) Failed in coping with the Al Qaeda-related militants on global and regional level, the US follows an ambivalent policy towards peace deals between Pakistan ’s elected government and the Taliban of the tribal areas.
It is notable that the US Deputy Secretary of State, John Negroponte and Assistant Secretary of State, Richard Boucher who visited Pakistan in the end of March this year, had negotiated with various leaders of the coalition government. After meeting with the elders of the Khyber Agency and while ensuring 750 million dollars assistance package for the Federally Controlled Tribal Areas (FATA), both the diplomats had emphasized “peace and tolerance as a prerequisite to sustainable development of FATA”. They had also appreciated Islamabad ’s decision for Reconstruction Opportunity Zones (ROZs) and agreed that “the elimination of poverty from the tribal regions was needed to bring about a positive change in the attitude of tribesmen”.
Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gillani, Nawaz Sharif of PML (N) and Asfandyar Wali Khan of NAP told both the visiting American officials that Pakistan held “its strategic ties with the US on high priority”—also said that as regards war on terror “all key policy decisions will be made through parliament”. The new government had also informed them in relation to peace talks with the tribal militants.
Quite contrarily, Negroponte while favouring the US concerns about the tribal peace move, told the American Senate Foreign Relations Committee during a special hearing on FATA on May 20, 2008 that Islamabad did not consult him and Washington in that regard. In the same debate, Democratic Senator John Kerry who disagreed with other law makers, disclosed that during “his meetings with the new leaders in Pakistan in February, 2008, he had realized that unlike the US, Islamabad had been confronting with a growing domestic Pashtun insurgency”—“the nature of terrorist threat in FATA is different from that of the United States”. Nevertheless, it reflects an ambivalent approach of the Americans.
After taking serious note of a continued wave of the suicide attacks in 2007 and 2008, resulting in a greater instability in the country, the new coalition government of Pakistan has successfully signed an agreement with the Swat Taliban, chieftains of Balochistan, and had talks with the militants of Waziristan led by Baitullah Mehsood. All the Taliban leaders have ordered their insurgents to renounce militancy. At the same time, the US Administration including Congress has increased pressure on Islamabad to call off the talks with the tribal activists and arrest Baitullah Mehsood.
In this respect, self-contradiction in the American policy could also be noted from the statement of Secretary of State Rice who said in a joint interview to the BBC with the visiting British counterpart on May 24, 2008 that the US recognized Pakistan ’s decision “to engage the militants as a sovereign decision of a friendly government”.
There are differences between Washington and London over the solution of Al Qaeda-linked militancy. In this regard, the daily, Guardian had already quoted British Foreign Secretary David Miliband saying, “There is “no military solution to the spread of extremism in Afghanistan and Pakistan ’s tribal areas”, and “backed the pursuit of political reconciliation” in the two countries. In addition, he underlined Britain ’s commitment to pursuing parallel political strategy in the Helmand province’s Gereshk valley where 8000 British troops are fighting the Taliban.
Meanwhile in a latest statement on May 25, 2008, White House spokesman Tom Casey while indicating that similar kinds of agreements did not succeed in the past, revealed that the “US will support Pakistan’s peace agreements in the tribal areas bordering Afghanistan, provided such pacts curb terrorist violence”. Opposite to this view, next day, NATOs spokesman Mark Laity in Kabul remarked regarding tribal peace deals, “We have seen increased activity of the insurgents in the eastern part of the country due to the de-facto ceasefires”. Without any doubt, rapid changes in the American stands show a wavering policy.
Surprisingly, even the Afghan Foreign Minister Rangeen Dadfar Spanta opposed Islamabad ’s reconciliation with the Pakistani Taliban and misperceived that the same would increase cross-border attacks in Afghanistan .On the other side, President Karzai has made inconclusive efforts to conclude peace deals with Afghan Taliban on a number of occasions with the approval of Washington . America has also continued to act upon this peace practice in case of Iraq .
In case of Lebanon on May 21, 2008, a peace agreement was signed between the US-backed ruling coalition and the Hezbollah-led fighters who routed the American trained governmental forces in a few days of fighting.
It is noteworthy that after a prolonged conflict between UK and Irish Republican Army (IRA), resulting into bomb blasts, destruction of buildings and killings of more than 4000 persons, British government had also signed a peace agreement with the Sinn Fein, the leader of the insurgents. And America had played a key role in that respect.
Besides other facts, displaying American ambivalent approach regarding Pakistan , another dimension is that since 9/11, the US has provided Islamabad with about 10 billion dollars in aid due to its support to the US-led NATO operations in Afghanistan . In fact, actual amount is four billion dollars supplied for military and economic purposes, while other six billions have directly added to the Coalition Support Funds. But American media and their high officials confused this aid as propagating 10 billion dollars, given to Pakistan . It is another factor which shows confusion in the minds of Americans.
There are many other reasons as to why the US is following an ambivalent policy in relation to Islamabad . A number of small countries have refused to come under the threat and pressure of Washington . In this context, Iran’s determination to continue her nuclear programme, Syrian stand in relation to Lebanon and Palestine, failure of democratizing the Middle East—North Korea’s signing of an agreement with America in accordance with her favourable terms and refusal of the Venezuela’s President Hugo Chavez to yield to the US pressure in relation to oil supply might be cited as an example in this context.
As regards internal impact, American cost of war has reached approximately 6 trillion dollars—decline of dollar, soaring prices of oil and acute recession inside the country have given a greater blow to the US economy.
However, the present circumstances show a catastrophic period for American diplomacy, that is why, Washington has intensified its pressure on Pakistan with the sole aim of diverting the attention of its public from the weaknesses of its external policy.
On the other side, manipulating the US ambivalent policy, both India and Israel have been availing this golden opportunity to achieve their covert goals by continuously trying to convince the US-led western states through a propaganda campaign that Pakistan is sponsoring cross-border terrorism in Afghanistan and Kashmir.
Like other high officials, even American President Bush who himself gave different contradictory statements on various occasions, sometimes calling Pakistan, a close ally, a frontline state of war on terror—also granted the status of non-NATO ally said on April 12 this year that Pakistan, and not Afghanistan or Iraq, is now a most likely place “where a plot to carry out any 9/11 type attack in the US” could be made.
It is of particular attention that more than 30 Indian foreign offices along with the north-western border of our country are supervising saboteurs to conduct bomb blasts in Pakistan . Despite the peace deals of the new government with the Taliban, bomb blasts in Mardan, Kohat etc. keep on going. Meanwhile, on May 14 this year, 20 persons were killed by American missile strikes in Bajur Agency. These strikes which could also continue in future are aimed at sabotaging the government-Taliban peace agreements. All this clearly shows that RAW, Mossad and CIA are working in accordance with a plot to destabilize Pakistan to fulfill the sinister strategic designs of their countries.
Our new leadership should know that Washington has badly entangled in a prolonged anti-terrorism war particularly in Iraq and Afghanistan where American and NATO forces have failed in coping with the stiff resistance of the insurgents. This fact has reduced its leverage of bargaining. In this respect, maintenance of peace deals with the tribal regions is essential for the national interest of Pakistan . So our political leaders, security forces and the public must have a strong unity to castigate external pressure and any plot against the country.
( Pakistani writer who writes on international affairs and who is also author of the book: US vs Islamic Militants, Invisible Balance of Power: Dangerous Shift in International Relations)
- Sri Lanka Guardian
Post a Comment