Changing US Perceptions and South Asia

By P.K. Kothari

September 11 Al Qaeda terrorist attacks on Washington and New York constitute a moment of radical transformation in world politics. It brought landmark changes in American perceptions on international terrorism. Strikes shattered two myths. One, that the US enjoyed a unique geostrategic advantage. If in the past the threats to US were derived, now these are direct. America today finds the phenomenon of terrorism as much a threat to international peace as to the homeland security. Secondly, the option of using 'militant' Islam to push forward geo-strategic objectives stands exhausted. A country that reared Wahabist regimes until recently mortally dreads Wahabism and its different variants.

The US is accosted with an elusive enemy, who does not abide by the traditional rules of war and can wreak destruction on urban America through acts of terrorism. Internal security has become a major domestic concern in America, as never before. New ideas on 'pre-emptive' or 'preventive wars' with concepts of 'regime change' are being floated. The US Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld put it as "If this war requires active abetment of regime change in nations that support terrorism and occupation of territory, so be it".

There has also been concern on the dangers from the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, in particular to terrorist groups, like Al-Qaeda, as well as the rogue states. Michael Krepon, Head of Henry Stimson Centre warns : 'One cannot confidently dismiss the possibility that a terrorist group in South Asia will acquire the means to make a crude nuclear weapon". Besides, legal and political measures to prevent the spread of weapons of mass destruction, the US is stressing on the military capability to deal with the threat. 'Counter-proliferation' and the development of missile defences are being talked about. The emphasis has shifted from rogue states to rogue groups. Previously, the US would not censure groups, which did not threaten US citizens and its assets. The US is abandoning this narrow approach awards a problem, which has global implications.

The US has enduring interests with history of intense political and economic engagement in Islamic world. It does not consider the ongoing confrontation with "Jehadi' groups as the clash of the world civilisations. It is the latter who regard it so. The US aim in the ongoing anti-terrorism campaign, is to defeat variants of Islamist extremism in Middle East and South Asia. The other hidden agenda in this campaign is to re-establish its total hegemony as the world's sole superpower. It has clearly designed its strategic designs in South and Central Asia. In the Middle East it is re-orienting its policy, jettisoning old friends and fine-tuning new strategies.

Middle East:

The US focus is towards Iraq rather than terrorism emanating from Palestinian-Israel conflict. It is seeking the ouster of radical regimes of the kind in Iraq. Incidentally, the second largest oil and gas reserves are in Iraq and hence US's obsession with replacing Saddam Hussain with a more pliable leader. The other consideration for war against Iraq is to keep its military-industry complexes thriving. Long-drawn war either in Iraq or Afghanistan suits economic and geo-strategic ambitions of US. The other initiatives in the middle east include support to the forces who seek a change in Iran, and uncritical support to Israel against Palestinians.

Relationship with erstwhile allies like Egypt and Saudi Arabia have undergone a profound change. US has said it has no intention to increasing aid to Egypt. Of the nineteen hijackers involved in attacks on World Trade Centre, fifteen were Saudis. This was forced US to tighten screws on Saudis. The Saudis were subjected to intense pressure to crackdown on several so-called 'charities' that were known to be funding fundamentalist organisations, given to promoting not just Wahabi Islam but terrorist violence all across the world. The Americans are moving towards reducing the importance of Saudi Arabia on energy supplies, by turning to sources like Russia. US also put pressure on Canada to end its visa-free entry to Saudi citizens. Mexico was asked to close down Riyadh embassy. Of the one trillion dollars investment in US, Saudis have reportedly withdrawn $200 billion dollars in past one year. Saudis alongwith Pakistanis are specially sought after immigrants in US, called to register themselves along with finger-prints and photographs. In 1990 Saudis had ardently supported US against Iraq. Today, they view the prospects of American military action against Iraq with some trepidation. Americans have also suggested to Saudis to encourage more openness and reform. In a recent address to the council on Foreign Relations, Mr Richard Hass, US Asstt. Secretary of state asserted that it was the lack of popular support and legitimacy that limited the ability of many regimes in the Islamic world to provide assistance to American efforts to combat terrorism and address issues of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

South Asia :

Post-September 11, 2001 has seen an unprecedented American engagement in South Asia. The war against Al-Qaeda and Taliban has already enmeshed US to rebuilding state and nation in Afghanistan. It has also brought war into a renewed military presence as well as deep political involvement in Pakistan.

Pakistan has been designated as an ally in the war against terrorism only for reasons of convenience. The US is caught up in a paradoxical situation. It requires the support of Gen. Musharraf and Pak army to achieve its immediate objectives in the war against terrorism. But the very forces it is trying to defeat have been the bastard children of the Army and its Jehadi cohorts. The US cannot realise its goals in the anti-terrorism agenda unless it radically alters Pak state and society. Political expediency and its penchant to put strategic designs above anti-terrorism agenda, rule it but for the moment. Dr Ayesha Siddiqa-Agha, the noted Pakistan columnist describes Pakistan's present relationship with US as one of dependency and subservience on the one hand and deceit and subterfuge on another.

There is widespread acceptance that Pakistan has become the epicenter of terrorism and breeding ground of religious fanatics. Najam Sethi, Editor, the Friday Times describes Pakistan : 'The country is home to Al-Qaeda. It has nuclear weapons. It is accused of trying to export nuclear technology. It has come to the brink of war with India. The word abroad is that Pakistan is potentially the most dangerous place in the world". The Influential "Newyorker" magazine reported, quoting a US non-proliferation expert : "Pakistan is the most dangerous country in the world right now and if the USA is incinerated any time it will be because of the highly enriched uranium that was given to Al-Qaeda by Islamabad'.

Pakistan Reluctance :

The US has succeeded in its mission to oust Taliban and Al-Qaeda regime in Afghanistan and installing Hamid Karzai, a friendly government. The lack of co-operation from Pakistan has hamstrung the US campaign. Even after September 11, 01 Pakistan did not abandon the Taliban and Al-Qaeda. Director of ISI bluffed the Americans on the handing over of Osama Bin Laden by Taliban. It was only after Bush threatened to take off Pakistan's nuclear assets that General Musharraf relented. Bush also overruled Pakistan's demands for ceasefire during Ramazan and not to allow Northern Alliance to take over Kabul. Knowing American compulsions, Musharraf sought to use new alliance to obtain international political legitimacy for himself. At the same time, the Pak dictator did not want to end its own terrorist activities in Kashmir on the ground that those who were fighting against Indian security forces in Kashmir were not terrorists but "freedom-fighters". The US summarily rejected this argument. President Bush himself declared that any person who targeted innocent civilians was a terrorist irrespective of the cause he represented.

US, however, agreed to allow over 4,000 Taliban and Al-Qaeda supporters to be airlifted from Kunduz by Pakistan Air Force. Subsequently, the Bush administration kept under wraps the dirty collaboration between North Korea and Pakistan. In the past also, Reagan administration had agreed to overlook Pakistan's nuclear programme and murdering of democracy, in return for support to American Jehad against Soviet Union in Afghanistan.

US slows down campaign :

The Daniel Pearl murder exposed ISI's continuing links with Al-Qaeda and the Taliban. Recently Congressional Research Sources finding reveals that merely 12 of the 31 top Al-Qaeda members and six of the 27 top Taliban members have been killed or captured. The US's antiterrorism campaign has failed due to lack of cooperation by Pakistan and unwillingness of US to push Pakistan hard for eliciting cooperation.

Pakistan's territory and infrastructure continue to sponsor terrorism in the region. Ahmed Rashid, a noted commentator on the region, blames Pakistan's army establishment for adopting a policy of running with the hare and hunting with the hounds, in the American war on terrorism. While one section of ISI pretends to cooperate with the FBI, another section provides shelter to Taliban and Al-Qaeda leaders. The top Taliban leadership- Mullah Kabir, Jallaluddin Haqqani, Maulana Muhd. Hassan and G. Hekamatyar stay in Pakistan with full knowledge of Pakistan government. A former Taliban diplomat indicated that the Taliban had acquired chemical weapons. He also added that Osama bin Laden was frequently shuttling between Afghanistan and Pakistan. There are an estimated 10,000 Al-Qaeda terrorists who have taken sanctuary in the tribal areas of Wazirstan and Northern Areas. The allegations that Musharraf was responsible for helping Jehadi parties to come to power in NWFP and Baluchistan have a ring of truth. The purpose being to provide logistic support to Al-Qaeda and Taliban, even while maintaining plausible deniability for himself.

Why is Pakistan unwilling to support the American's war against terrorism? Ralph Peters, author of 'Beyond Terror: Strategy in a changing world' says it is because the extremists have been fervent allies on Kashmir issue. He argues, "The government has been unwilling to take a stand as the organised domestic extremists, whose avowed goal is to remake Pakistan as a strict Islamic state and who sponsor violence to achieve their ends. All the while the mirage of a "liberated" Kashmir blinds Pakistan's leadership to the country's rational self-interest". Imtiaz Alam, a leading Pakistan columnist points out that the trouble Pakistan is faced with today is basically the wages of its own sins which it committed after adopting a "false doctrine of strategic depth". He argues : "A pro-militancy policy for more than two decades had created a widespread network of Jihadi militias, civilian and military structures, that were attuned to militancy and often adventurism. It was just not enough to change one external aspect of a flawed security doctrine. What was required was that all spectrums of militancy should have been completely dispensed with..."

There are some analysts who point out US has slowed down anti-terrorism campaign due to its strategic designs in Central Asia. Prolonged stay in the region, rather than a quick victory, will help achieve this and the ultimate aim to encircle China.

Contradictions in the uneasy US-Pakistan alliance are reaching to a climax. It seems the unnatural relationship is coming to an end. There are a number of reasons.

On December 29, 2002 there was unprecedented exchange of fire between Pakistani troops and American special forces in Southern Wazirstan. Two Pakistani and one American soldier were killed and a religious seminary was bombed. Pakistan has not been cooperating and Al-Qaeda operatives have been freely criss-crossing the porous Pakistan-Afghanistan border and regrouping. Most of the Al Qaeda-Taliban attacks on allied forces are occurring in the areas bordering Pakistan. There has been reluctance on the part of Pakistan to allow coalition forces to conduct combat operations in Pakistan, particularly in tribal areas, bordering Afghanistan. Recently thousands of Pakistani soldiers "deserted" army to join Al-Qaeda terrorists in the tribal areas. As per US officials, there are more than 10,000 Al-Qaeda terrorists, having taken sanctuary in tribal areas of Wazirstan and Northern Areas. Fake passports were being issued to Al-Qaeda terrorists. The US has sought permission to bomb the Pak tribal areas. This has unnerved the Pakistanis. The tribal areas of Wazirstan Agency have seen been completely sealed.

Secondly the US administration has found the Pakistan authorities wanting on many counts, especially the FBI hunt for Al-Qaeda elements. The authorities have been engaged in cosmetic crackdowns. An influential section in the establishment has also been cleared real culprits. In the Sheraton bombing case, in which 11 French Engineers were killed, Pakistan police fabricated a story to prove the involvement of one Asif Zaheer. FBI officials had shielding him of any involvement in this case. FBI has now taken over the charge of hunt inside Pakistan and has put three million Pakistanis--criminals, politicians, industrialists and businessmen, under scrutiny. Dr Amir Aziz and other people involved in nuclear programme were apprehended and questioned by FBI in Lahore and Multan. Dr AQ Khan, whose sympathies for Al-Qaeda, is well known, too has been put under scrutiny. Musharraf has been asked to usher reforms in madarassas and have better official monitoring, to desist these from preaching violence. The widespread network of Al-Qaeda in Bangladesh and the presence of Lashkar camps in Kuwait, which point to Pakistan involvement, have also alarmed the US.

There is also a litany of complaints from Pakistanis in the US, livid at the treatment meted to them. Americans rebuffed the suggestion of Pakistan Foreign Minister, Khurshid Kasuri, to take Pakistan off the list of suspect countries. Nearly 50,000 Pakistanis fear deportation. Pakistanis fear their country's turn will come after US has dealt with Iraq. These fears have even been articulated by Gen. Musharraf.

Two major developments which have brought urgency in US response against Pakistan are regrouping of Taliban and stepping up of cross-border terrorism in J&K. In December, 2002 ISI facilitated a meeting between Hekmatyar and Mulla Omar. The two were in full agreement to carry out operations against the American forces. The Americans have voiced their concern on attempts at Talibanisation, beheading of women and pushing of foreigners and Al Qaeda terrorists and suicide squads in J&K. ISI has floated two conglomerates 'Kashmir Freedom Force' and 'Kashmir Revoluntionary Force' of Jehadi militias. About five hundred members of Lashkar and Jaish-i-Muhamad have been released. Their chiefs are going round the country whipping up Jehadist hysteria. Lashkar and Jaish have been re-designated as Jamaat-ud-Dawa and Tehrik-i-Khuddam udding respectively. The two organisations have spent Rs 500 million in buying property to set up new centres in four provinces. The print media of these Jehadi organisations, which had become dormant too, has become active.

Stress on cross-border Terrorism :

US has begun putting pressure on Pakistan to put an end to cross-border terrorism on a permanent basis. Ambassador Blackwill, for the first time cold-shouldered Hurriyat, when he visited Kashmir on the eve of elections. Subsequently, the ambassador told the alumni of Indian Institute of Technology in California that peaceful resolution of Kashmir issue  could not be done "in a situation in which the terrible acts of terrorist violence that characterise J&K stop". He added that the LoC cannot be changed by violence and said, "in the absence of a jointly agreed Indo-Pakistani alternative, everyone should ensure that there is continued sanctity of the LoC" the Ambassador favoured increased people-to-people contacts and expanded trade relations as initial steps in normalisation. He minced no words in condemning those who were of the view that when identifying terrorists, there was a need to consider history, circumstances and other subtleties. He argued : "To the contrary I say that defeating terrorism for US and India is not subtle. It is a matter of survival for ourselves, for our democratic values, for our religious freedom, for our children, for everything we hold dear. Let us please name those for what they are who murder innocent for political motives and who seek to bring down the very pillars of democracy. These murderers are not misunderstood ideals, they are not disadvantaged dissidents, they are not religious perfectionists and they, most assuredly, are not freedom fighters. They are terrorists and we should be careful always to call them exactly that".

On January 23, 2003, Nancy Powell, US Ambassador to Pakistan told top businessmen at the American business council meet in Karachi : "Pakistan must ensure its pledges are implemented to prevent infiltration across LoC and end to use of Pakistan as a platform for terrorism. I cannot overstate the importance of all parties working to end the culture of violence that afflicts Kashmir. We continue to look for ways to encourage peace in Kashmir. One important step could be a ceasefire along the LoC".

Two days later, Richard Boucher, US state department spokesperson said : "Infiltration has gone down and come back somewhat...We do believe infiltration should stop completely and that is an issue that we do continue to work with the govt. of Pakistan. The US secretary of state, Colin Powell, addressing the annual meeting of the World Economic Forum at Davos, Switzerland remarked : "No American 'hidden hand can remove the distrust between India and Pakistan. That is they must do for themselves. It is crucial that they both take risks for peace on the subcontinent and work to normalise relations".

The US officials also told the visiting Pakistan Foreign Minister, Khurshid Kasuri that the onus was on Pakistan to take steps that could lead to talks with India. These moves included controlling cross-border infiltration, respecting the sanctitity of LoC, and responding to India's suggestion of normalising trade relations. Compounding all this, Pakistan was also called in to account for its nuclear proliferation activity, particularly its ties to North Korea. Earlier, Gen. Musharraf, to allay US fears, had ruled out accidental nuclear war with India. He had also said that there was no danger of nuclear assets falling into wrong hands.

Indian Reaction:

India does not hold much hope. So long as US continues to regard Pakistan as an anti-war ally, American exhortations to Pakistan on cross-border terrorism will remain unheeded. The Indian leadership has displayed a matured response in not putting much hope on the present American posturing. It has formulated a two-pronged diplomatic strategy: One, consolidate counter-terrorism and two, launch a sustained diplomatic campaign. This strategy stems from the assessment that Pakistan is preparing an aggressive strategy to foment terrorism in India. The Indian leaders have expressed disappointment at US for not putting enough pressure on Pakistan to dismantle structures and sources of terrorism. Mr KC Pant, Deputy Chairman of Planning Commission, demanded de-radicalisation of Pakistan as was done in post war Germany and Japan. He demanded, "The Americans should consider tackling the root of the problem and not just its manifestation in Pakistan". Explaining the Indian stand, Mr Yashwant Sinha, the External Affairs Minister said, "We have to systematically choke off the four crucial lifelines of the terrorist groups: refuge, finance, arms and any remaining ambivalence on the part of the international community". He made these remarks in a presentation on India-EU relations-perspectives in the 21st Century at the Penteion University, Athens. For the present, there are no takers  on that US role is changing from being part of the problem to become part of the solution.