The Bush Visit:
Premature Euphoria
By Dr Shireen M. Mazari
Even as the cartoons' issue continues to linger
with the Europeans becoming ever more arrogant in
their defense of the indefensible, the Bush visit
has taken center-stage in Pakistan. The pre-visit
interviews given by President Bush to the Pakistani
and Indian media were intended to create a positive
environment for his arrival, while his talk at the
Asia Society probably was a clearer picture of actual
US policy towards this region.
There was little new in the Asia Society speech
on February 22, because the prime focus was on the
strategic partnership the US perceives with India
and the multiple commonalities that Bush sees between
the US and India. Interestingly, his lack of historical
recall was also revealed when he stated that the
US had not "always enjoyed close relations
with Pakistan and India" because in the past
"the Cold War and regional tensions kept us
apart …" Clearly, he forgot that Pakistan
at least perceived itself as being a close ally
of the US during the Cold War! But perhaps that
was merely a reflection of the dominance of India
in his mind and on his South Asian tour itself.
Bush sees India as a partner in pushing forward
US global policy goals -- from free trade to democracy
to energy and so on. Bush also reiterated the US
position on India's nuclear program when he declared
that the US will address the "need to bring
India's nuclear power program under international
norms and safeguards." Obviously, the US has
already de-linked this program from India's military
program and accepted the latter without any curtailment
or safeguards being required.
In contrast, in the context of Pakistan, Bush saw
us primarily as "a key ally in the war on terror".
Beyond that, there was no extensive strategic partnership
that was outlined. Instead, the Pakistan part of
his Asia Society speech was focused more on Pakistan's
internal dynamics, including the democracy issue
and education. US intent once again focuses on restructuring
our polity -– while the Indian polity, with
all its abuses and shortcomings, is of no concern
to the US.
It was on Kashmir that President Bush gave cause
for a premature euphoria in Pakistan and a massive
display of self-censorship in the Indian media.
At the Asia Society, President Bush only declared
that he would encourage the leadership of Pakistan
and India to address this "important issue.
America supports a resolution in Kashmir that is
acceptable to both sides." However, in the
interview with the Pakistani media he recalled that
he had referred to "both sides" but he
said the language should be "all sides"
because he recognized that a solution "must
be acceptable to India, Pakistan and those living
in Kashmir." Quite rightly, taken by itself,
this remark was welcomed in Pakistan because it
seemed to imply that the US was not pushing simply
for a status quo as the solution.
In his opening remarks to the Indian media, he went
even further and stated: "I do want to make
something clear in the speech I gave today (to Asia
Society). I said that -- as to the Kashmir interest
-- issue, America supports a solution that is acceptable
to all sides. As you might recall in my remarks,
I said 'to both sides'. I would like the record
to be so that the world hears me say, 'all sides'.
I fully understand that the deal has to be acceptable
to the Indians, Paks, as well as the citizens of
Kashmir…"
The Indian media simply left this quote out but
the White House put out an official text! Yet, Pakistan
should not be too delighted with this statement
because it also reflects the derogatory way in which
Bush perceives Pakistanis in his reference to "Paks".
While the US media has been abusive of President
Musharraf, including referring to him as "meretricious",
one does not expect the leader of one sovereign
state referring to a whole nation by a generally-recognized
term of abuse. Also, when Bush uses the word "citizen"
in the context of Kashmir, it implies an independent
sovereign status for Kashmir. What could he possibly
have been implying?
So, what is the real US position on Kashmir? Is
it contained in the Asia Society Bush remarks; or
the reference to Kashmir in his interview to the
Pakistani media; or the censored opening remark
made to the Indian media? While Pakistanis immediately
began welcoming the Bush remarks, it may be more
prudent to wait and see what actually transpires
during the course of the Bush visits to Pakistan
and India -- and, it seems, Afghanistan. After all,
in his interview with India's Doordarshan, in response
to a question on the so-called "terrorist training
camps and training infrastructure in Pakistan-occupied
(sic) Kashmir", Bush declared that "on
my trip to Pakistan, I will, of course, talk about
the terrorist activities, the need to dismantle
terrorist training camps…"
Therefore, let us be more contained in our enthusiasm
of the Bush visit -– especially when we recall
what happened to our self-respect and dignity when
Clinton visited as President. There are also some
critical issues for Pakistan in the context of the
US. Two of the most important, strategically, are
respect for Pakistan's sovereignty in the ongoing
war on terror and the threat to Pakistan's strategic
stability posed by the Indo-US defense and nuclear
cooperation deals. The first requires a clear and
unconditional commitment by the US -- without which
there can be no concept of any substantive cooperation
let alone partnership. We are a strong state; let
us behave like one.
The second issue requires making the Bush Administration
understand, in as simple and clear-cut a language
as possible, that their military and nuclear deals
with India -– and their so-called de-hyphenation
in their Pakistan and India relationships -–
threaten the nuclear stability of South Asia as
well as challenging Pakistan's self-imposed nuclear
restraint and minimum nuclear deterrence. Unless
the US intent is to deliberately destabilize this
region, their Missile Defense cooperation with India
and their acceptance of India's military nuclear
program have a direct negative fallout on Pakistan's
security parameters. That is why, unless there is
some similar balancing agreements with Pakistan,
US interests in the region will conflict with Pakistan's
strategic compulsions. The wheat and soya bean approach
towards Pakistan while military hardware and technology
flow to India cannot be thrust on us anymore. And
if India's civil nuclear program is de-linked from
its military -– in clear violation of the
NPT -– then our program has to be dealt within
a similar fashion. That does not mean we need civil
nuclear energy from the US, given that China is
a far more reliable option, but we do need to have
a non-discriminatory US nuclear policy for this
region.
Unless we can get a positive response in terms of
these two vital interests, we must accept the issue-specific
limitations of the Pakistan-US cooperation and institute
more equitable quid pro quos in this framework.
As for Kashmir, the strength of the Kashmiris and
the righteousness of their cause will see them through
and it is our support that must be unflinching because
US statements may simply remain just that.
(The writer is director general of the Institute
of Strategic Studies in Islamabad. Courtesy The
News)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
