Stop Blaming
Pakistan
By Brian Cloughley
Voutenay sur Cure, France
Whose side is Washington on
when it comes to Pakistan? The messages are confusing.
On one hand the Pentagon submissions to Congress
on June 28 concerning supply of F-16 combat aircraft
to Pakistan state "Given its geo-strategic
location and partnership in the Global War on
Terrorism, Pakistan is a vital ally of the United
States . . . This proposed sale will contribute
to the foreign policy and national security of
the United States . . .", but the State Department's
coordinator for counter-terrorism, Henry Crumpton,
declares that Pakistan hasn't "done enough"
in the fight against terror.
I have to declare an interest because I lived
in Pakistan for a long time and know President
Pervez Musharraf to the extent of calling on him
when visiting Islamabad, which I do regularly.
I don't disguise the fact that I like the country
and most of its peoples, although I write critically
about various aspects of its governance, not least
in the latest edition of my book about the Pakistan
Army in which I criticize, among other things,
the invasion of Indian-controlled Kashmir in 1999.
But what confuses me are accusations and flat
statements that Pakistan isn't serious about dealing
with terrorists.
Pervez Musharraf has narrowly escaped being killed
in three attempts on his life by members of extremist
Islamist groups. Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz was
uninjured in a suicide attack while he was electioneering.
It is unlikely that a person who has had survived
assassination efforts by terrorists could be other
than extremely serious about combating them. The
religious loonies in Pakistan are virulently and
violently anti-Musharraf and anti-Aziz because
they seek to spread acceptance of "moderate
Islam" in the spirit of the Koran. Musharraf
would be extremely unwise to adopt other than
an uncompromising attitude to the terrorist fanatics
who are intent on killing him and taking over
the country.
Musharraf very much wants to foil the ferocious
bigots who want to make Pakistan a fundamentalist
Islamic state like Saudi Arabia whose citizens
(or at least the non-Royal ones) are at the mercy
of religious police; where women have no right
to vote or even drive a car; and which, according
to the US State Department, is "governed
on the basis of Islamic law" and has "no
political parties or national elections".
(Condoleezza Rice demanded last week that "There
has to be, the world expects there to be, democratic,
free and fair elections in Pakistan in 2007",
which is a fair comment. But it would be even-handed
to make similar demands about Saudi Arabia and
other oil-producing Gulf monarchies.)
To claim that Musharraf is not doing as much as
he can to rid his country of terrorists is to
ignore the essentiality of doing just that, not
only from a personal point of view (as he obviously
wants to keep on living and is under threat from
all sorts of barbaric Islamists), but from the
aspect of his nation's very survival as a non-fundamentalist
nation.
Here's a Reuters' report about the US official
stance on Pakistan : "Most al Qaeda and Taliban
leaders are in Pakistan, and while the United
States did not know where Osama bin Laden was
hiding, he was probably on the Pakistan side of
the border, said Henry Crumpton, State Department
coordinator for counterterrorism . . . Afghan
officials have complained insurgents were able
to gather support and launch raids from the safety
of Pakistani territory. Violence has intensified
in parts of Afghanistan in recent months to its
worst level since US and Afghan opposition forces
ousted the Taliban in 2001. "Has Pakistan
done enough? I think the answer is 'no',"
Crumpton told a news briefing in the Afghan capital,
Kabul [on May 6, 2006]. "Not only al Qaeda,
but Taliban leadership are primarily in Pakistan,
and the Pakistanis know that," Crumpton added."
For the information of Mr Crumpton, since 2004
Pakistan has lost 700 para-military and army soldiers
killed in action in North West Frontier Province
while combating Taliban fighters and the tribes
which support the Taliban (which is almost all
6 million of them). By any definition of "doing
enough", this would appear to be a reasonable
sacrifice on the part of Pakistan in its support
for the Bush crusade in Afghanistan. And I can
state that the Pakistan Army and the Frontier
Corps, whose soldiers have died in support of
US objectives, are not altogether impressed by
people like Mr Crumpton who deride their sacrifice
and have no idea whatever of the complexities
of life in the border region and no notion of
how difficult it is to deal with the tribes.
Here is what I wrote elsewhere about the tribal
areas:
Pakistan's Federally Administered Tribal Areas
(FATA) are an anachronistic holdover from the
time of British India when they proved violently
opposed to British rule. The population of about
6 million is largely illiterate but is generously
subsidised by the central government (electricity
is free, for example) to which no taxes are paid.
Only 7 per cent of the land area (total, about
the size of Belgium) is cultivable. Most income
is generated by smuggling uncustomed goods from
Afghanistan into Pakistan, by drug trafficking
from Afghanistan, and general criminal mayhem.
Attempts by government to bring FATA into mainstream
Pakistan, supported by educated tribals, have
failed because of resistance on the part of their
leaders and, especially, influential religious
figures who seek continuance of an almost mediaeval
society. The only law, the (British) Frontier
Crimes Regulations of 1901, permits arrest of
any tribal without public justification. This
has worked adequately in the past, generally with
the cooperation of the tribal elders and leaders,
or maliks, but otherwise justice is meted out
by tribal gatherings, or jirgas.
The tribal code of honour is sacrosanct and attempts
by outsiders to interfere with it, and especially
with the custom of Pashtunwali, the requirement
to afford protection and hospitality to any who
seek it, meet resistance with an intensity incomprehensible
to most foreigners ¬ and to very many Pakistanis
who themselves are regarded as foreigners by the
tribes.
Over to you, Mr Crumpton. Let's have your solution
as to how Pakistan can do more to meet your demands
concerning anarchy along the Afghan border where
Pakistan has lost five times as many soldiers
killed in action as the US has in Afghanistan.
As to Mr Crumpton's statement that "insurgents
[are] able to gather support and launch raids
from the safety of Pakistani territory",
he may not have included a major factor in his
deeply intellectual analysis. This concerns Afghan
citizens resident in Pakistan.
The UN High Commission for Refugees estimates
that there are still over one and a half million
Afghan refugees in camps in Pakistan. (Down from
a total of some 2.5 million in the 1980s when
the United States paid Afghans to fight against
Soviet troops who occupied the country with the
agreement of the Afghan leader of the time.)
Perhaps Mr Crumpton could explain exactly how
Pakistan is expected to stop Afghans in Pakistan
returning to their country should they wish to
do so. There is nothing Pakistan would like more
than to be rid of a million and a half Afghans
who occupy so much of its land, soak up its depleting
water, contribute nothing to Pakistan in taxes
or any other dues expected from its own citizens,
engage in bloodthirsty feuds and widespread criminal
activity, and are the majority of those who make
forays over the border to combat those whom they
regard as invaders and illegal occupiers of their
country, just as they did the Soviets. Any solutions,
Mr Crumpton? If Musharraf tried to confine them
to the camps or, as he would much prefer, make
them return to Afghanistan, there would be a war
in Pakistan that would make the present conflict
in Afghanistan look positively tranquil.
In the three years of US and other western forces'
occupation of Afghanistan there has been no improvement
in social or economic conditions that would encourage
refugees to return, in spite of all the efforts
of Pakistan and the UN High Commission for Refugees,
a saintly organisation that gets a lot of undeserved
criticism. The announcement by Bush on May 27
that Afghanistan is now a "democracy"
and an ally "in the cause of freedom and
peace" was mendacious humbug intended to
mislead the American public into believing that
the US invasion had created stability. In fact
the country has rarely been so dangerous, even
in the days when US-supported guerrillas were
attacking Soviet forces in exactly the same way
as present-day guerrillas attack US forces and
their surrogates.
What has happened is that US air attacks on Afghan
villages (and at least one tribal hamlet inside
Pakistan, blitzed by a remotely piloted aircraft),
together with Iraq-style military brutality by
ground troops have led the majority of Afghans
to detest Americans and, by association, all foreign
troops in their country. There isn't anything
Pakistan can do about that. And neither can Pakistan
control those Afghans and Pakistanis who see the
present Afghan war as yet another crusade against
Muslims.
Nobody can claim that Afghanistan is an easy country
to govern. It has never been stable and has for
centuries been the playground of the strongest
thugs with the most weapons. Tribals from Afghanistan
and Pakistan have always moved freely across the
border, mainly because those who live in that
region have relatives on both sides. A partial
solution might be a (vastly expensive) border
fence, but the Afghan government formally rejected
Pakistan's fencing proposal two weeks ago.
Many tribal chiefs, the 'warlords' as they are
called by the media, who were bribed by the US
to topple the Taliban ands are now prospering
through production of opium and heroin, are not
in any way averse to the situation in Afghanistan
as it helps them become richer. They have fooled
the Americans into believing that they will help
them fight against extremist Islamists, while
laughing up their sleeves at the ingenuousness
of the invader. It is absurd to imagine that Pakistan
welcomes the massive flow of drugs across the
border from Afghanistan, and in all the years
in which western troops have occupied Afghanistan
the traffic has not diminished by even a tiny
fraction. "Coalition" troops have not
even tried to stop or control poppy growing and
heroin production; this was simply not a priority.
Drug money funds Afghan militias who are determined
to maintain the trade. There is nothing whatever
that Pakistan can do about that.
During the four years of foreign occupation of
Afghanistan in the 'global war on terror' Pakistan
has experienced Islamic terrorism to the extent
of dozens of bombings, one assassination attempt
against its prime minister, and three assassination
attempts on its president. There has been a resurgence
of Taliban who detest the central government and
regard it as unIslamic and are prepared to fight
to the death against it. The tribes on both sides
of the border have been alienated, infuriated,
and made even more violent by US-Pakistan military
attacks on their homelands. A crisis has developed
over angry Afghan refugees who refuse to go home
because their country remains in chaos in spite
of the west occupying it for years and, according
to Bush, bringing it "democracy". The
deaths of 700 Pakistani soldiers have caused even
the loyal army to wonder what the cost of supporting
America might eventually entail. A growing domestic
drug problem has caused enormous social problems
and caused even more corruption. And there is
criticism from the US State Department and other
US officials that the government of Pakistan isn't
"doing enough" to control Afghan and
Pakistani guerrillas who say they regard the invasion
of the region as a Christian Crusade against Islam.
The current edition of The Economist carries an
excellent survey of Pakistan that ought to be
read by those who want to understand its problems,
and its observations about Islamic extremists
are chilling. It is in the best interests of Pakistan
to combat terrorism if its president and government
are to survive, and it is untrue and indeed absurd
to claim that Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz and
President Pervez Musharraf, both modernist moderates,
are not doing their utmost to counter terrorism
in all its aspects. Their very lives depend on
their success. They deserve support rather than
carping criticism.
(Brian Cloughley writes on military and political
affairs. He can be reached through his website
www.briancloughley.com)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
