Threat Nuances
against Pakistan
By Shireen M. Mazari
It seems the US is
not prepared to give the Pakistani leadership any
decent respite from its "do-more" mantra
in relation to Afghanistan. And as NATO/ISAF continue
to show an inability to deal with the resurgent
Taliban threat, which is increasingly becoming more
of a Pashtun resistance, the proclivity to blame
Pakistan for their failures increases.
So we have had Dick Cheney now visit us and demand
that we do more, while from Washington President
Bush has also, if US media reports are to be believed,
threatened Pakistan with his inability to stop discriminatory
legislation if we are not seen to be "doing
more" on the Afghan front. As usual, loyal
Britain has added to this mantra, through its Secretary
of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, Beckett,
who happened to be visiting Pakistan at the time
of the Cheney stopover. And as if that was not enough
poisonous hot air for us, the present US-compliant
Canadian government also added to this rather tedious
refrain.
Of course, if Bush is to be believed that he cannot
control what happens in a Democrat-dominated Congress,
then whether or not Pakistan "does more"
will not impact the discriminatory legislation against
Pakistan, so the issue is moot. However, we should
pay serious attention to what is happening presently
in our region, especially with the massing of US
troops rather close to Pakistani waters. After all,
the American aircraft carrier, USS John C Stennis,
is anchored about 120 nautical miles off the coast
of Pakistan. Now the US may claim that this has
nothing to do with Pakistan and that it is not even
threatening Iran, but the reality is different.
That there is a most serious and direct threat being
staged against Iran by the US is a given, but let
us look at the implications of this particular carrier
for Pakistan. Clearly, it is a veiled threat of
use of force, which can be to either pressure Pakistan
further on Afghanistan, or to compel it to refrain
from any adverse (for the US) action in case of
an attack against Iran.
That the USS Stennis's position is contrary to the
UN Charter is also equally clear. Article 2(4) of
the Charter states: "All member states shall
refrain in their international relations from the
threat or use of force against the territorial integrity
or political independence of any state…."
Although the USS Stennis is in international waters,
it's positioning is threatening for Pakistan. In
UN debates on the issue, the positioning of such
carriers close to merchant sea-lanes, as notified
by the International Maritime Organization (IMO),
is seen as a clear threat of use of force. So Pakistan
needs to take up this issue with its ally before
things get further complicated, especially in terms
of a growing US belligerency against Iran -- and
the possibility of a similar belligerency against
Pakistan.
It is in this context that Pakistan needs to ensure
that it does not get drawn into any configuration
with Muslim states that could be perceived as a
US-crafted or inspired emerging bloc against Muslim
states hostile to the US. That is why the statement
decrying the use of force against Iran that came
from the meeting of the seven Muslim foreign ministers
in Islamabad last week was extremely timely and
necessary. However, from Pakistan's perspective
future meetings of this group will serve a better
purpose if Iran, Syria, Palestine and Lebanon are,
included since Middle East peace requires their
support and therefore their inputs. After all, Muslim
states cannot behave like the US and impose "solutions"
on states without even talking with them. Also,
including Bangladesh would also seem to be an added
plus, given its commitment to UN peacekeeping and
the centrality of the Muslim World to it. In any
event, given that out of the group of Muslim states
that met in Islamabad, four had established relations
with Israel -- that is, Turkey, Indonesia, Egypt
and Jordan -- many are construing this meeting,
no matter how incorrectly, as an attempt to widen
the recognition of Israel to include those holding
out like Malaysia, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. These
are unnecessary misperceptions that can be removed
if the group is expanded to include the critical
Middle East-Gulf players.
In the context of Iran, the diplomatic openings
made between Saudi Arabia and Iran, no matter how
tentative, need to be encouraged. In contrast, the
report in a Pakistani newspaper, citing Kuwaiti
sources, that the UAE and other Gulf states had
agreed in principle to allow Israel to use their
airspace in the context of an attack on Iran needs
to be countered -- through the media, if it is only
a report, and through diplomacy if there is any
truth in it. In the latter case, it would be a lethal
adventurism for such states who would surely suffer
a major fallout of any attack against Iran.
On Iran itself, there are so many contradictory
statements coming out from the US that at the end
of it the only thing that seems to be clear is that
the US is seeking regime-change in that country
and the nuclear issue is simply one pretext. While
some amongst the US leadership want Iran to roll
back all its nuclear advances, Condoleezza Rice
has recently declared that Iran only has to suspend,
not reverse, its nuclear program. Meanwhile, the
Europeans are also saying different things, with
Britain and Germany most vociferously opposing Iran.
While all this posturing is going on, reports are
now being confirmed that the US is funding dissident
Iranian groups, especially in Iranian Balochistan
where it is lending support to the Balochistan United
Front of Iran. It is within this context that one
has to see the attack against the bus filled with
Revolutionary Guards recently in Sistan. For Pakistan
again, this raises serious issues because it could
also lead to US support for Pakistan's dissident
Baloch groups and terrorists.
It is interesting to note that the US and EU have
yet to declare the BLA a terrorist group -- although
the UK has now done so. In a more quid pro quo approach,
shouldn't Pakistan demand that the US and EU move
to declare the BLA a terrorist group before they
continue with their nauseating "do more"
refrain for Pakistan? Why is the US so hesitant
in taking such a step, unless it is to use this
as a source of pressure for Pakistan?
Whichever way we look at developments in our own
neighborhood, it is apparent that even if Iran is
the primary target for the US and its potential
coalition of the willing, Pakistan will also be
targeted -- even if only as necessary "collateral
damage". That is why we need to proactively
ensure that this design is thwarted and we are not
willy-nilly compelled to become an unwilling "ally"
in what will be a self-destruct scenario for us.
Already we are paying a heavy price for the blinkered
military-centric policies of the US and NATO in
Afghanistan. We cannot afford to do the same in
the Iran-Gulf context. Let us use our not-insufficient
means to proactively chart a more viable course
externally.
(The writer is director general of the Institute
of Strategic Studies in Islamabad. Courtesy The
News)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
