Knowing facts first hand

AS A global power the United States has vast experience in dealing both with authoritarian regimes and democratic governments, and it also remains prepared to effect changes in its policies towards them if and when dictated by abrupt or expected political transformations in those regimes. A joint visit here during the week by senior State Department officials, Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte and Assistant Secretary of State Richard Boucher, was expected some time this month, says Pakistan Foreign Office, but they arrived dot on the day transfer of power was being transacted in Islamabad that was a bit surprising. Even a senior retired diplomat had to dub their arrival as an exercise in “crude diplomacy”, echoing the common perception they were here to ensure political survival of President Musharraf, widely believed to be their point man in Pakistan in the US war on terror. The media was, however, far more agitated - perhaps overlooking the fact that the US officials did meet almost all important leaders, including the lawyers’ representatives. They also visited the tribal area and had face-to-face interaction with a section of the tribal leadership. Irrespective of the opinion about the appropriateness of the timing of their visit there is no gainsaying the assertion that they heard the very authentic, unvarnished version of the emerging reality, untainted by expediency, that people of Pakistan have rejected President Musharraf’s line on war on terror. Nawaz Sharif whom the State Department officials met at a place of his choosing, was quite blunt: we cannot allow Pakistan to become a “killing field” in the war that we are expected to be fighting to bring peace in others’ countries, he told them. The PPP leadership took the position that the instead of Presidency it would be the newly elected parliament that would determine the future course of Pakistan’s participation in this war. Lawyers asked the American officials to stay out of the judicial crisis, and if at all they want to get involved they should agitate in favour of judges’ rights to be free to deliver even-handed justice. The American officials also met with Prime Minister Gilani who had by then received President Bush’s telephonic message of greetings on his election. Negroponte was said to be “quite pleased” with his meetings. More such meetings are not being ruled out given that while the senior of the two would be leaving Assistant Secretary Boucher would stay, possibly for direct interaction with the new foreign minister when he is sworn in.
The message that must have come through to the visiting US officials in their meetings in Islamabad and at Khyber Mess in Landi Kotel has three important components. First, it was conveyed to them that Pakistan’s war-on-terror policy will be reviewed by the new parliament. Since the February 18 parliamentary election was more or less a referendum on President Musharraf’s policies and he has lost, so there is virtually very little possibility of retaining the same. In fact, an indication of this has been already conveyed to President Bush when Prime Minister Gilani told him that though Pakistan would preserver in its commitment to fight terrorism it would change its strategy by adopting a political approach buttressed with a development programme. Second, the tribal leaders will get a bigger role in dealing with the militants by employing the time-tested jirga system for purposes of negotiations. Third, direct action by the United States or the US-led coalition forces against militants on the soil of Pakistan will not be tolerated. Use of Predator drone flights against suspected Taliban hideouts, which invariably caused huge collateral damage of life and property, has provoked serious reaction throughout the country.



Action, not vision

THE 26-member states of NATO begin a two-day summit on Wednesday in the Romanian capital Bucharest. Top of the agenda will be the alliance’s involvement in Afghanistan. At the moment the one thing certain to come out of the meeting is a long-term “vision statement” on Afghanistan. This is hardly an adequate outcome as the Afghans face ever-greater challenges from Taleban insurgents and Al-Qaeda. The time for brave vision is long past. What is now wanted from the world’s premier military organization is action Yet NATO is at odds with itself. There is an ugly split between members prepared to commit troops to fight and hold back the insurgency, principally the Americans, British Canadians and Dutch and other countries, notably France and Germany who are seen as not pulling their military weight, preferring to keep their small troop contingents patrolling peaceful areas or training the Afghan Army. The political argument is that the conflict in Afghanistan enjoys little domestic sympathy. Yet this is to ignore the commitment that all NATO countries willingly undertook in 2003, when they agreed to assume the UN mandate to provide peace and security in Afghanistan.
And even when it comes to training the Afghan Army, the NATO members who want to avoid battle are also failing. Afghan Defense Minister Abdul Rahim Wardak yesterday warned that insufficient new troops were being trained. The armed forces currently number 50,000 and NATO says it is hoping another 20,000 would join the ranks by the end of this year. Yet this is far short of the Afghan assessment that there will need to be a properly trained and equipped army of up to 200,000 to be able to confront the insurgent Taleban. Wardak almost seemed to be trying to cajole recalcitrant NATO countries yesterday when he pointed out that the sooner Afghanistan had its own effective security forces, the sooner, NATO could disengage from his country. There is perhaps a tone of desperation creeping into the Kabul government. It knows that when Western powers cut their support after 1990 ouster of the Soviet occupation forces, Afghanistan was plunged into civil war. It rightly fears the same outcome now. And the concern at being abandoned goes wider. Only $5 billion of the $12 billion of the originally promised international aid has so far been delivered. Governments have not fulfilled big promises. If ordinary Afghans see themselves betrayed economically as well as militarily, they will ultimately turn to the warlords, whose bitter feuds have for so long stymied the country’s stability and progress. NATO could make a huge difference in Bucharest next week, but only if it backs noble words with strong and much-expanded action. NATO governments should not forget their past neglect allowed Afghanistan to become a heartland for international terror. The world, not just the Afghans, will pay the price if they fail again.

—Arab News