Dawn, May 6, 2005
How US intelligentsia views Pakistan
By Tayyab Siddiqui
OFFICIAL circles in Pakistan are basking in the glow of their fanciful optimism that Pakistan’s relations with the US have never been as close as they are now and will deepen further in the near future. It is argued that Pakistan’s crucial role in the war on terror is the bedrock of this relationship and that in the coming days, the country’s strategic location would impart even greater substance to ties with Washington.
Statements from President Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice praising President Musharraf for his support in the US-led war on terror, the verbal commitment of long-term ties, Pakistan’s status as a major non-Nato ally and the approval of the F-16 aircraft sale are being cited as evidence.
These expectations are based on misplaced confidence in the sustainability of official US declarations. They betray an ignorance of the policymaking process in Washington. In the United States, foreign policy is not the exclusive prerogative of the state department or the White House. There are a number of actors who determine the course of US foreign policy. These include Congress, the media and think-tanks among others. Their analysis, reports, editorials and recommendations carry, in many instances, disproportionate influence on the formulation of objectives and approach of policymakers.
Think tanks and policy research centres like the Rand Corporation, the Heritage Foundation, the Institute of International and Strategic Studies, the Asia Society, Council for Foreign Relations, Carnegie and Brookings etc wield enormous prestige and influence. Each administration, Democratic or Republican, has drawn heavily on their evaluations and recommendations. These bodies engage a wide spectrum of scholars and analysts ranging from conservative ideologues to ultra liberals.
The common strand is their commitment to Israel and since 9/11 both have found convergence in their latent fear of Islamic fundamentalism that they equate with terrorism. On Pakistan there is grudging appreciation of its key role in combating terrorism, but this feeling is diluted by the perceived prevalence of anti-US feelings and the absence of democratic institutions and liberal traditions in Pakistan.
Similarly, the media, both print and electronic, is dominated by neocons and members of the Jewish community who modify, control and even direct US foreign policy on security issues. Comments in newspapers like the Washington Post and the New York Times are required readings for the administration and Congress.
In the wake of 9/11, the focus of US foreign policy has shifted to terrorism, nuclear proliferation and Islamic fundamentalism. The neocons view militant Islam as the “forces of darkness” bent on destroying the fabric of international order. They refuse to accept that terrorist attacks are in response to US policies, in particular its blind support to Israel; its military presence in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states and its invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq.
Two recent reports of the influential US National Intelligence Council and the Congressional Research Service illustrate this. Both not only delineate a bleak picture of Pakistan’s political future, but also differ with the official appreciation of the situation in Pakistan. Both reports were issued in mid-February but are regularly updated.
The Global Futures Assessment Report, prepared in cooperation with the CIA, offers a futuristic projection of selected regions and countries and makes its forecasts based on available data and trends, for the next decade. The report paints a gloomy, almost a scary, scenario of Pakistan in 2015; as a “failed state ripe with civil war, bloodshed, inter-provincial rivalries, lack of command and control of nuclear weapons and lurch towards extreme fundamentalism.”
The report identifies six major trends that have provided the basis for this doom scenario - “political and economic mismanagement, divisive politics, lawlessness, corruption, ethnic friction and militant religious politics.” The report warns that democratic reforms will produce little change in the face of opposition from an entrenched political elite and radical Islamic parties. “Further domestic decline will encourage Islamic political activists who may significantly increase their role in national politics and alter the makeup and cohesion of the military — once Pakistan’s most capable institution. In a climate of continuing domestic turmoil, the central government’s control probably will be reduced to the Punjabi heartland and the economic hub of Karachi.”
The report concludes that in 2015, 10 years hence, “Pakistan will be more fractious, isolated and dependent on international financial assistance.” By contrast, the report predicts that India would emerge as a major regional power, thanks to its economic growth and democratic character and cohesion.
The Congressional Research Service is a semi-official body, mandated with preparation of policy briefs for the members of Congress, it is the most influential, if not decisive factor in developing Capitol Hill’s response to foreign policy issues.
In its latest report on Pakistan, the CRS, in the context of Pakistan’s role in the war against terror, recommends, “sustaining the current scale of aid to Pakistan and the provision of long-term and comprehensive support to Pakistan as long as its government remains committed to combating extremism.”
Despite this positive note, the report warns the lawmakers that Pakistan is “probably the most anti-American country in the world right now, ranging from the radical Islamists on one side to the liberal and westernized elites on the other.” The report further alleges that Pakistan’s powerful intelligence agencies are involved in drug trafficking, and the drug sales have financed activities of Islamic extremists in the recent past.
Such assessments cause considerable concern among US representatives, who having no direct personal knowledge of the region, rely on the findings of such institutions and calibrate their response accordingly.
The infamous Larry Pressler, who as a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, successfully blocked the sale of F-16 aircraft to Pakistan in 1990, had earlier moved a resolution seeking sanctions against Pakistan. In a syndicated article written on the eve of the Rice visit to Pakistan last month, he criticized Washington’s pro-Pakistan policy; urging a fundamental policy shift for the subcontinent and that the US should put the expansion of liberty and democracy at the centre of its foreign policy.
Larry Pressler wrote, “Pakistan is a corrupt and absolute dictatorship. It has a horrendous record on human rights and religious tolerance, and it has been found again and again to be selling nuclear materials to our worst enemies.”
The issue of nuclear proliferation is also a popular subject for US legislators and foreign affairs analysts. The media stories of “A.Q. Khan’s illicit nuclear secrets bazaar” based on dubious intelligence reports raise the ugly spectre of nuclear weapons falling into the hands of terrorists. Responding to such reports, the US Senate Committee on Intelligence held a hearing last month. The CIA chief said that Dr Khan had passed secrets and equipment to a host of “rogue nations” and did not discount the possibility of “non-state actors”, as “potential Khans”. In a recent investigative report in the New York Times it was claimed that Dr Khan sold $100 million worth of nuclear gear to Libya and that “secrets of A.Q.’s nuclear black market continue to uncoil, revealing a vast global enterprise.”
These revelations have generated increasing pressure on the US administration to tie military assistance to Pakistan to the latter’s nuclear ambitions. The CRS in another report has suggested that the “US should seek from Pakistan a stronger adherence to nuclear non-proliferation and more cooperation and information on Khan’s network as a price for obtaining high valued military equipment such as F-16”.
The alarming reports have led to a bill, currently pending with the US House of Representative and moved by the Indian caucus, requiring the US to prohibit military assistance to Pakistan as well as ban the transfer or sale of military equipment or technology unless the president certifies to Congress that Pakistan has provided the US unrestricted opportunity to interview Dr Khan and complied with requests for assistance from the IAEA regarding the “illegal international nuclear proliferation network”.
The bill has scant possibility of passage on the Hill, but its significance lies in the general perceptions widely shared by public institutes, policymakers and the legislators of the unstable political structure in Pakistan and the grave danger it poses to peace and security especially where US strategic interests are concerned.
These negative predictions have cast a long shadow on the prospects of long-term bilateral relations between Islamabad and Washington. Instead of living in a make-believe world, policy planners in Pakistan must assess the gravity of such perceptions and realize that the only way to correct such distortions and gain international credibility is through seeking internal political consensus and unity.
A strategy of reliance on indigenous resources, both material and human, alone would enable us to offset any adverse fallout of a sudden change in US policy, which, as our experience shows, has been unreliable, even unfriendly, at most critical junctures in our national life. Prudence demands that we reshape our foreign policy with greater realism and refrain from taking US support as a constant factor in our future planning.
The writer is a former ambassador.
No comments:
Post a Comment