Although it sounds more audible and less responsible than from any other source, President Karzai is not the only one offering a crash course in anti-Pakistan rhetoric. Such statements, from a traditional adversary, a not-to-be-trusted ally and a seriously reliant neighbour, all of whom are bound together by different considerations, do point towards a structure. All the three states have held Pakistan responsible, at the official and unofficial level, for the miseries the region is facing.
The Afghan president has made a habit of castigating Pakistan at every possible opportunity. While the incriminating statements from Kabul are nothing new, the present outburst has surpassed the previous ones in the diplomatic history of the two countries. Paying no attention to the fact that Karachi was rocked by blasts one after the other on the same day, Karzai lashed out at Pakistan and accused it of being behind the suicide attack on the Indian embassy. Such a charge was leveled even before a customary superficial investigation took place. Whereas finger-pointing is something that is undertaken by many faltering regimes, the surprising element is the kind of approval such statements are granted elsewhere.
On Tuesday, President Bush iterated at a White House news conference that the United States would probe into the allegations Karzai has leveled against Pakistan. He then went a step further by asserting his belief that militant extremists have been infiltrating from Pakistan into Afghanistan resulting in the destabilisation of not only Afghanistan but of the region at large. He made it public that he has conveyed his concern to the visiting Pakistani prime minister. It seemed as if President Bush was reading a leaf out of the Karzai book of mantras. The tone, however, was not as undiplomatic, as is the case with the Afghan president.
The predominance of Northern Alliance elements in the Karzai administration is the reason behind the maligning of Pakistan with regards to the resurgence of Taliban in Afghanistan since 2006. Conveniently ignoring the glaring fact that Pakistan is suffering as much as Afghanistan is, if not more, they will lash out at Pakistan for its recognition of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan in the 1990s.
If this line of argument has any rationale, then the United States should also take some blame for being the most opportunist exponent of religious radicalism in Afghanistan and elsewhere. It has been said most often, for all the right reasons, that it was the United States that created and used the brand of radical Islam seen in the Tribal Areas of Pakistan and in Afghanistan. Many still believe that the current wave of radicalism and the struggle against it by the United States is part of another ‘Great Game’ unfolding in the Central Asia.
Astonishingly, one of the key pro-America players in the war against communism in Afghanistan, the Pakistani intelligence agency, ISI, has come under increasing US pressure for its alleged involvement in the terrorist attacks in Afghanistan. The ISI has not changed course, after the Cold War, regarding cooperation with the American CIA and Pentagon. However, its foremost duty is to secure Pakistan’s national interests. Pakistan’s national interests, however, are not always identical to those of the US interests.
ISI as an intelligence agency is as much responsible to Washington as the CIA is to Islamabad. It is ineffectual to expect Pakistani government or ISI to work towards goals set by Washington for itself.
It is hard to believe that Americans would be ignorant enough to have faith in former communists and the present drug-dealers more than a longstanding ally, Pakistan, without a single rational reason. The approval to his statements gave the Afghan president enough courage to tell the Americans that while the attacks in Afghanistan are merely killing civilians the Nato forces should operate in Pakistan.
Not less harmful in any way, the Indian line of attack is more diplomatic and measured than the Afghan approach. The Indian government and media have historical reasons to be anti-Pakistan, as the two countries have rarely been on good terms since their independence in the mid-20th century. It was not unexpected, therefore, that Indian fingers were pointed at Pakistani ISI after the deadly July bombing of Indian embassy in Kabul.
Although it ostensibly seems that it is the Afghan president, who is leading the orchestra, the reality might be a whole lot different. Hints of where the allegations come from can be seen in the mainstream US media. Anyone having familiarity with the relationship between the US intelligence services and the media would know that the US media itself does not engineer allegations against Pakistan. To endorse the point even more, The New York Times itself acknowledged that the source for the news relating to Pakistan’s involvement in the Indian embassy bombing was United States intelligence agencies.
The recent lash out against Pakistan by the US media is not limited to the ISI and the Indian embassy episode. The anti-Pakistanism goes further with the aim of damaging Pakistani interests in the long-term.
Foreign Policy Magazine listed Pakistan among the Top 10 failed states in the world – one position above Afghanistan. Oblivious to the facts in Pakistan, the report does not signify much in terms of domestic impact. However, it may make it difficult for Pakistan to enhance its quickly deteriorating image – but that is the sole purpose of putting Pakistan in the Top 10.
Even the US government displays its displeasure over Pakistan’s War on Terror efforts. The allegations of Pakistan being a reluctant ally have been as frequent as they can possibly be, for a country termed as an ally. The belief that Al-Qaeda has established stronghold in the Tribal Areas of Pakistan has been iterated and reiterated not only by the US intelligence agencies but also occasionally by the White House and the Pentagon.
The explanations for this multisided onslaught are various and all with some reason. Foremost is the misperception in many circles in the United States that it is a good ploy to pressurise Pakistan in order to make it ‘do more’. I call it a misperception because Pakistan has already done much more than warranted by its own national interest. For most of its history, the rulers of Pakistan have believed that they derive their legitimacy from Washington and therefore they should pay Washington what it takes. The affects of Pakistan’s involvement against the Soviet Union have yet been felt on each and every section of our national life. And as if that was not enough, we are engaged in another more destructive campaign on the side of the United States.
The second and more recent explanation is the new found love by the United States for India. The US is doing everything that will ensure the rise of India as a regional power capable of handling the Chinese rise. Part of the scheme involves eliminating the Pakistan factor.
Even looking at the situation from a realist perspective of disregarding moral and ethical considerations for achieving national interest, the policy of blaming Pakistan will prove to be counterproductive. The more there will be blames the least Pakistani government will have a justification for being pro-America. In the process, the United States may lose an ally that has been so easy to bring into play, while others would sit on the fence.
