Realism:Failure of 'Power'

US that granted the status of a non-NATO ally to Pakistan due to its role as a frontline state in the war on terror since 9/11, has gradually intensified pressure on Islamabad, coupled with a number of paradoxes, especially after the new elected government concluded peace agreements with the Taliban leaders in the Federally Controlled Tribal Areas (FATA) as a result of a continued wave of suicide attacks.

The US Deputy Secretary of State, John Negroponte who visited Pakistan in the end of March this year, ensured 750 million dollars assistance for tribal areas and emphasized, “the elimination of poverty from the tribal regions to bring about a positive change in the attitude of tribesmen”, saying, “peace and tolerance as a prerequisite to sustainable development of FATA” has now taken a u-turn. On May 20, 2008, favouring the US concerns regarding the tribal peace move, Negroponte agreed with the American Congress lawmakers and the Administration in putting pressure on Pakistan to call off its deals with the tribal militants and arrest Baitullah Mehsood.

Quite contrarily, Democratic Senator John Kerry, supporting the FATA peace pacts, 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 a growing domestic Pashtun insurgency”—“the nature of terrorist threat in FATA is different from that of the United States”. Like Kerry, Secretary of State Rice also pointed out in an interview to the BBC on May 24, 2008 that the US recognized Pakistan’s decision “to engage the militants as a sovereign decision of a friendly government”.

Self-contradictions in the American policy towards FATA could also be noted from some latest statements. For example, on May 25, 2008, White House spokesman Tom Casey revealed that the “US will support Pakistan’s peace agreements in the tribal areas, provided such pacts curb terrorist violence”. Opposite to this view, next day, NATOs spokesman Mark Laity in Kabul remarked, “We have seen increased activity of the insurgents in the eastern part of the country due to the de-facto ceasefires”.

Besides, there is another interesting point which shows a paradox of Americans. The US has so far provided Islamabad with about four billion dollars in aid because of its support to war on terror, while other six billions were directly added to the Coalition Support Funds. But American high officials confused this aid as propagating 10 billion dollars, given to Pakistan.  

It is of particular attention that on a number of occasions, the US-backed Kabul and Baghdad regimes have made fruitless efforts in concluding peace deals with the insurgents with the covert approval of Washington. In case of Lebanon on May 21, 2008, a peace agreement was signed between the US-supported ruling coalition and the Hezbollah-led fighters who routed the American trained official forces. In the past, Washington had itself played a key role in relation to a peace deal between UK and Irish Republican Army (IRA).

There are many other reasons as to why the US is following a contradictory policy in relation to FATA. A number of small countries like Iran, Syria and Venezuela including Hezbollah have refused to abide by the US dictates due to their own individual interests.

Meanwhile, American cost of war against terrorism has reached more than 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.

The sole superpower has badly entangled in a prolonged conflict particularly in Iraq and Afghanistan where American and NATO forces have failed in coping with the stiff resistance of the insurgents who have demoralized the former. Recently, differences were witnessed in Bucharest when NATOs European members, especially Germany were reluctant to send more troops in Afghanistan. Canada and Australia intend to withdraw their forces from that country in future.    

No doubt, present paradoxes of the US strategy show a catastrophic period for American diplomacy and that is why, Washington could attack the tribal regions of Pakistan with the sole aim to keep the European allies united and to divert the attention of its public from the weaknesses of its external policy.

In this regard, American CIA Director Michael Hayden on March 30, 2008 said that Al Oaeda fighters have turned Pakistan’s “tribal areas into safe havens” and the US “has interest in targeting the border region” between Pakistan and Afghanistan where, he claimed Al Qaeda was “plotting attack on the west and the US”. On April 12 this year, American President Bush also stated 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.

On the other side, manipulating the US ambivalent policy, India, Afghanistan and Israel have been availing this golden opportunity to achieve their covert goals by continuously trying to convince the US-led western states that Pakistan is sponsoring cross-border terrorism in Afghanistan and Kashmir.

It is notable thatdespite the peace deals of the new government with the Taliban, bomb blasts in Mardan, Kohat etc. keep on going. Meanwhile, American missile strikes in Bajur Agency on May 14, 2008 indicate that the same will continue in future to sabotage the government-Taliban peace agreements and to create lawlessness in Pakistan. All this clearly shows a collective plot to destabilize Pakistan through a US-NATO invasion on the Frontier Province under the cover of cross-border terrorism in Afghanistan as some countries want to fulfill their sinister strategic designs. Without any doubt, rapid changes in the American stands reflect an ambivalent approach which is likely to endanger our country.

My own article, published in Pakistan’s English daily, The Nation on June 5, 2008

Email:sajjad_logic@yahoo.com