Pariah Pakistan?
By Sam Fowles
Monday 19th October 2009
Monday 19th October 2009
This week the US Secretary of State, Hilary Clinton, joined British Foreign Secretary, David Miliband, in expressing confidence in the safety of Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal as its beleaguered government prepared to send troops into South Waziristan, a stronghold of the Pakistani Taliban, the PPT. Observers might be forgiven for questioning whether or not this confidence is misplaced. Just hours before Clinton and Miliband made their statements, gunmen dressed in military uniform attacked Pakistan’s military headquarters in Rawalpindi, killing six soldiers and taking a further thirty nine military and civilian personnel hostage. These were later rescued by Pakistani commandos but a further two soldiers and three hostages were lost in the attempt. Pakistan is strategically crucial in the international war on terror, situated as it is on the border with Afghanistan. But are Clinton and Miliband mistaken to place their confidence in such an unstable state or are the US and her allies now suffering the consequences of years of poor diplomacy in their relations with Pakistan?
The attack in Rawalpindi marks yet another disaster in a bloody year for Pakistan. The beginning of the month saw suicide attacks on the UN headquarters in Istanbul and earlier in the year Clinton accused the Pakistani government of “abdicating” to the PPT, after insurgents pushed to within a hundred kilometres of the capital city. A ground offensive in the Swat valley and the death of, PPT leader, Baitullah Muhsud in a missile strike by US drones in the summer were seen as limited successes, but the recent attacks show that the insurgency retains the capability to strike at the heart of Pakistan’s military and civilian administration.
In response to the attack in Rawalpindi the Pakistani Interior Minister, Rehman Malik, told the Reuters news network: “What happened in Peshwar, Islamabad and today, all roads lead to South Waziristan”. This statement shows the importance the government places on operations in the region, which borders Afganistan and is thought to be a base for insurgent attacks in both states. However even military success in this region may not be enough. Iftikhar Hussain, the Information Minister for Pakistan’s North West Frontier Province, has warned that the PPT has a growing following in the Punjab. His claims are supported by the Reuters discovery that, in intercepted radio transmissions, the hostage takers in Rawalpindi were speaking Punjabi.
Pakistan’s government has always been shaky. The army has historically removed any President that it does not approve of. The current premier, Asif Ali Zadir is the first democratically elected premier since General Perez Musharraf’s coup in 1999. The army is generally considered to remain more interested in India than the insurgency, with the majority of Pakistani troops still stationed in Kashmir. But, says Mustafa Quadri, a former lawyer and writer on middle eastern affairs; such an attitude is understandable when India spends eight times as much as Pakistan on weapons and the area remains disputed.
Quadri ‘s claims raise serious questions about exactly where we should be placing blame for the current situation. As Jamie Metzl of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace points out; in order to succeed against the Taliban and Al Queida, the coalition must win the hearts and minds of nations as well as governments. In Pakistan this has not happened. Quadri claims that many Pakistani’s still refuse to accept that their countrymen are behind the insurgency, believing the stories to be a further example of the west’s tendency to blame Pakistan for the world’s ills. This is a classic example of what Akbar S. Ahmed, of the American University in Washington DC, calls a “siege mentality”. This theory is not entirely without evidence. While India talks loudly about her fears that the liberal government in Pakistan will jeopardise her security by allowing extremists to do “what they like”, she also spends $40bn per annum on weapons to point at her neighbour. The pogroms of the Gujarat Government, where thousands of Muslims and Christians were killed, still loom large in Pakistani memories. Israel echoes India’s accusations but does not appear to recognise that supplying India with arms, such as the Phalcon airborn radar system, will only serve to threaten and isolate the people and government. The goodwill of these is essential in preventing what Israel and India claim to fear.
By far the worst offender is the United States. Former President George Bush stopped short of branding Pakistan part of the “axis of evil” but certainly hinted that he believed many Al Quieada operatives were trained in camps in Pakistan. While the Bush administration made these accusations, they made no attempt to prevent the flagrant human rights abuses of the Musharraf regime. After such treatment, it’s unsurprising that the Pakistani people are distrustful of the West.
As 23 000Pakistani troops move into South Waziristan, outnumbering the 10 000 insurgents, their success depends on far more than mere military might. As Fadi El Salameen, founder of Voice of Arab Youth, a moderate American organisation, points out; by its very nature, an insurgency is embedded within the civilian population. If Pakistan’s government in not given the support if needs by those who claim to be its allies, not merely in rockets and bombs but in diplomatic inclusion, then history suggests that this new operation is unlikely to be a success. Expressing their confidence in the existing regime might just be the most intelligent strategic move Clinton and Miliband could have made.
The attack in Rawalpindi marks yet another disaster in a bloody year for Pakistan. The beginning of the month saw suicide attacks on the UN headquarters in Istanbul and earlier in the year Clinton accused the Pakistani government of “abdicating” to the PPT, after insurgents pushed to within a hundred kilometres of the capital city. A ground offensive in the Swat valley and the death of, PPT leader, Baitullah Muhsud in a missile strike by US drones in the summer were seen as limited successes, but the recent attacks show that the insurgency retains the capability to strike at the heart of Pakistan’s military and civilian administration.
In response to the attack in Rawalpindi the Pakistani Interior Minister, Rehman Malik, told the Reuters news network: “What happened in Peshwar, Islamabad and today, all roads lead to South Waziristan”. This statement shows the importance the government places on operations in the region, which borders Afganistan and is thought to be a base for insurgent attacks in both states. However even military success in this region may not be enough. Iftikhar Hussain, the Information Minister for Pakistan’s North West Frontier Province, has warned that the PPT has a growing following in the Punjab. His claims are supported by the Reuters discovery that, in intercepted radio transmissions, the hostage takers in Rawalpindi were speaking Punjabi.
Pakistan’s government has always been shaky. The army has historically removed any President that it does not approve of. The current premier, Asif Ali Zadir is the first democratically elected premier since General Perez Musharraf’s coup in 1999. The army is generally considered to remain more interested in India than the insurgency, with the majority of Pakistani troops still stationed in Kashmir. But, says Mustafa Quadri, a former lawyer and writer on middle eastern affairs; such an attitude is understandable when India spends eight times as much as Pakistan on weapons and the area remains disputed.
Quadri ‘s claims raise serious questions about exactly where we should be placing blame for the current situation. As Jamie Metzl of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace points out; in order to succeed against the Taliban and Al Queida, the coalition must win the hearts and minds of nations as well as governments. In Pakistan this has not happened. Quadri claims that many Pakistani’s still refuse to accept that their countrymen are behind the insurgency, believing the stories to be a further example of the west’s tendency to blame Pakistan for the world’s ills. This is a classic example of what Akbar S. Ahmed, of the American University in Washington DC, calls a “siege mentality”. This theory is not entirely without evidence. While India talks loudly about her fears that the liberal government in Pakistan will jeopardise her security by allowing extremists to do “what they like”, she also spends $40bn per annum on weapons to point at her neighbour. The pogroms of the Gujarat Government, where thousands of Muslims and Christians were killed, still loom large in Pakistani memories. Israel echoes India’s accusations but does not appear to recognise that supplying India with arms, such as the Phalcon airborn radar system, will only serve to threaten and isolate the people and government. The goodwill of these is essential in preventing what Israel and India claim to fear.
By far the worst offender is the United States. Former President George Bush stopped short of branding Pakistan part of the “axis of evil” but certainly hinted that he believed many Al Quieada operatives were trained in camps in Pakistan. While the Bush administration made these accusations, they made no attempt to prevent the flagrant human rights abuses of the Musharraf regime. After such treatment, it’s unsurprising that the Pakistani people are distrustful of the West.
As 23 000Pakistani troops move into South Waziristan, outnumbering the 10 000 insurgents, their success depends on far more than mere military might. As Fadi El Salameen, founder of Voice of Arab Youth, a moderate American organisation, points out; by its very nature, an insurgency is embedded within the civilian population. If Pakistan’s government in not given the support if needs by those who claim to be its allies, not merely in rockets and bombs but in diplomatic inclusion, then history suggests that this new operation is unlikely to be a success. Expressing their confidence in the existing regime might just be the most intelligent strategic move Clinton and Miliband could have made.