Recognizing
US Duplicity
By Dr Shireen M. Mazari
It is difficult
to understand how the US expects the Pakistani state
to continue giving it unflinching support on the
war against terrorism when it uses every opportunity
to challenge its policies -- both external and internal
-- and undermine its legitimate right to sustain
a credible defense capability. Just when the Pakistani
state thought it would now have access to US weapon
systems, especially the F-16s, out comes the news
that the US Congress is questioning this deal worth
$5 billion. The pretext this time is that it needs
to know how Pakistan will prevent China from having
access to advanced US technology and whether there
has been such a diversion already of US technology
in Pakistani hands.
A short memory span seems to afflict the US Congress,
given that Pakistan has not received advanced US
military weapon systems and technology for decades
now. In fact, we have suffered severe problems because
of the now old weapons systems that we had acquired
from the US because of the problem of spares and
because some of those systems like the Cobra helicopters
were unable to function effectively in our terrain
conditions. Additionally, how can we, as a nation,
forget the money we lost in a previous F-16 deal
when we got no planes and no money back either?
Instead, we received wheat and soya beans. Perhaps
this negative Congressional response should be an
advanced warning to us to recall how we got burnt
last time. Our long-term answer to weapons acquisition
in order to sustain a credible capability lies in
seeking more indigenisation and cooperation with
other states, with perhaps European suppliers to
act as a short- to medium-term option. Perhaps we
need to focus more on other delivery systems as
well. Are the F-16s really that vital, given all
the other long-term costs? And, given the new US-India
strategic partnership, will we get advanced weapons
systems in the F-16s or will we get systems that
are just a tad less advanced than what India acquires?
Let us also remember that buying the F-16s bolsters
the US defense industry by bringing in vital funds
so it is not as if the US does not benefit from
these sales.
Even before the Congress moved against the F-16
deal, the last Rice visit to Pakistan should have
been an eye-opener as to the treatment being meted
out to the most critical state in the war against
terrorism. Although domestic reports of this visit
drew attention to the issue of democracy and elections,
according to Jane's Intelligence report of July
6, Rice also focused on the nuclear issue. Despite
clear evidence of India's proliferation record at
the level of the state and in spite of Pakistan's
laws on export controls and strong command and control
structures (Pakistan is one of the few states, if
not the only one, that has made public a detailed
picture of its National Command Authority), Rice
continued to express so-called US concerns over
Pakistan's previous proliferation.
This now becoming absurd and farcical, since one
cannot continue to dig up the past ad infinitum.
Otherwise the US, France, Norway and Britain would
be far guiltier of proliferation to Israel, and
if the past was to continue to be dredged then where
would post-1945 Germany be in terms of acceptability
as a major European player? And while all these
states have been guilty of omissions at the level
of the state, Pakistan's proliferation issue has
never been state-centric -– being focused
on one Pakistani individual along side a group comprising
Europeans and Asians. So the US needs to end its
farce of using the A. Q. Khan issue to deny Pakistan
a nuclear deal similar to the one given to India.
At the same time, perhaps Pakistan needs to examine
whether it really wants to go for a civilian nuclear
deal with the US because in Pakistan's case it will
have extremely intrusive measures that may undermine
our weapons capability in the long run. We would
be far more susceptible to increasing demands and
access relating to our weapons capability. In any
event, Pakistan needs to take stock of whether we
have really been suffering by not gaining access
to US civilian nuclear technology? Somehow, the
answer would not be in the positive.
According to Jane's, Rice also referred to the Iran
nuclear issue with Pakistan, with an expectation
that Pakistan would also adopt the Indian position
on Iran. That would clearly be against our national
interest because we need to continue to support
Iran's right to acquire nuclear energy even as we
sustain our principled position on the obligation
of states to stand by their treaty obligations.
Of course the US has no time for principles these
days as it flouts one international treaty after
another. The US Supreme Court verdict on Guantanamo
Bay showed how far the Bush Administration had flouted
all norms of justice and international law.
This is not to say that we should not exploit the
opportunity we have vis-a-vis the US because of
our essential role in the war on terrorism. But
our cooperation should come in a more equitable
fashion with clearer quid pro quos and greater transparency.
The US and its various governmental and associated
NGOs should not get unhindered access to the resources
and lay of the land. Clearly, our cooperation with
the US will always be issue-specific.
Equally important, we need to focus more strongly
on our commitment to multilateralism and the UN.
In this connection, we should be active on the issue
of the new UN Secretary General. It is ironic that
at present it is the Muslim World that offers the
most competent potential women candidates from Asia.
Iran could really catch the US on the back foot
by nominating Shireen Ebadi, but we would also be
projecting ourselves very favorable by pushing for
Dr Maleeha Lodhi's candidature. Win or lose, she
would give a positive global projection not only
of Pakistan, but also of the capabilities of the
Pakistani woman. Whatever one's micro level disagreements,
it is in the interest of the Pakistani woman to
support Dr Lodhi who lacks nothing in competence
and professional capabilities. Her candidature in
itself would be good for Pakistan.
Of course, the US is playing a devious game here
also because it wants to have a Polish candidate
for the secretary-general's position, so it is letting
the Asians fight it out initially. But in the face
of a female candidature, it would be hard pressed
to press ahead with its covert intent. As for the
Indian candidate, the UN can certainly do without
yet another UN bureaucrat as secretary-general.
Pakistan has always played an active role in international
forums, especially the UN, and in the present global
milieu, bolstering the role of multilateralism is
essential for it. And what better way to project
the Muslim World favorably than by pushing for a
female candidate. Every rapidly developing state
has its share of problems but we need to rid ourselves
of our psychological confidence deficit.
(The writer is director general of the Institute
of Strategic Studies in Islamabad. Courtesy The
News)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
