• Home
• Video
• Books by Ikram Sehgal
• About

The crossroads of friendship

Introduction:
Over the past several months the fraternal relationship between USA and Pakistan has been subjected to great strain, reaching almost to an impasse over the past few weeks. There is mass resentment in Pakistan at the US-led air offensive against Iraq, the main US reason seems to be exasperation at Pakistan’s continuing nuclear programme, suspected to be weapon-oriented despite our protestations to the contrary. At a soul-searching historic crossroads in our mutual friendship, we require mature analysis, understanding and generous accommodation of each other’s primary interests, a pragmatic combination of mutual respect for each other’s viewpoint as well as the demands of real-politik. Both countries are presently straitjacketed in myopic tunnel vision that has potential of being detrimental to each other interests, to Pakistan’s more than the US of A.

US over the past two decades:
As individuals there are no better people on this Earth than Americans. They are generous, generally sincere and their friendship is genuine. Their penchant for democratic values and the democratic traditions is admirable. Relatively speaking, in comparison to the peoples of other nations, they maintain the highest standard of human qualities and inter-relationships. The US has been a more than generous donor to Pakistan and other Third World countries, people do not appreciate how much till the AID is cut off. Despite all these admirable character traits the US nation’s world view seems simplistic sometimes, even myopic and/or guided by Special Interest Groups (SIGs). Little heed is paid to the advice given by the First US President, George Washington, to his fledgling nation on leaving the Presidency, “do not make inveterate friends or foes among nations”. During the last year or so US policy has been on a heady roller coaster ride upwards because of the startling collapse of the Soviet Empire, most of the success can be traced to mature and reasoned US inaction in the natural process of decline of the USSR, any move to further the process would have been counter-productive. For the best part of four decades, the US has been the greatest bulwark of the free world (and democracy) in confronting the dictatorial system ruled over by Soviet Russia (Reagan’s “evil empire”), that enslaved its own people and those of neighbouring nations in the name of their brand of socialism. The debacle of Vietnam put US on the defensive in the 70s, overshadowed in turn by President Nixon’s resignation over the Watergate Scandal. A comparatively ineffective though well-meaning person, Vice-President Ford succeeded Nixon as leader of the free world. Freed of Nixon’s overpowering and dominating stature, Henry Kissinger as US Secretary of State dominated President Ford. For his personal aggrandisement as the “Great Negotiator”, Kissinger set forth a disastrous course of detente for the US, one of total appeasement of Soviet Russia, ignoring the fact that totalitarian regimes take compromise to be a sign of weakness, to be derided and taken advantage of. The US was the No.1 Superpower, becoming second best was tantamount to becoming a non-entity of sorts. With vital pre-eminent Superpower status lost to the US, the Soviet Union gleefully moved simultaneously on many fronts, in Latin America through Nicaragua and El Salvador, in Africa through Angola and Ethiopia, but above all the Russians positioned themselves for the ultimate master stroke viz (1) obtaining centuries old dreams of warm water access to the Indian Ocean (2) to sit astride the free world’s oil supply. The Soviet Union initiated moves to turn the Afghanistan satellite into a suitable springboard for the final dash to the Indian Ocean. The years of Vietnam had resulted in a backlash in 1976 that ensured that a liberal democrat, Governor Jimmy Carter, became the US President. A humane, God-fearing personality, he was ill-equipped in geo-politic realities to cope with the job of US President, he became a walking disaster. Served by excruciating circumstances, the prime debacle for US policy being the overthrow of the Shah of Iran, thereby overturning the cornerstone of US policy in the region, Jimmy Carter subsequently became hostage to the “Iran hostage” crisis. While he holed himself in the White House huddled over a “hostage watch”, his Presidency went to seed on both domestic and international fronts, the Soviets were the biggest gainers on a broad geo-political front. The symbolic low-point of US fortunes was reached in the debacle in the Iranian desert in the great botched-up hostage rescue effort.

Ronald Reagan was elected President of the USA in 1980 primarily because of a conservative backlash at the sorry international straits the US was thrust in. Ronald Reagan became the free world’s primary cold war warrior to frustrate further Soviet expansionism. Not known as a cerebral President, he depended upon a bevy of conservative advisors to keep the US “Standing Tall”. The Soviets had in the meantime blundered into Afghanistan before their own projected time schedule because their local Afghan surrogates (having ambitions of their own) had jumped the gun, in this process their well-laid plans for eventual move to the Indian Ocean went completely awry. US and Pakistan relations were cool at this stage because of the burning of the US Embassy in Islamabad over a perceived desecration of the second holiest place in Islam, Dome of the Rock Mosque in Jerusalem, an example of how mob rule can vent its misguided passion on unfounded rumours, the US had nothing to do with it. US President Carter offered Pakistan US$ 400 million in military and economic aid in the face of the Soviet excursion in Afghanistan, dismissed by then Pakistani President Gen Ziaul Haq as “peanuts”.

Pakistan over the past two decades:
With Ronald Reagan’s advent to the Presidency, US policy makers decided that the line against Soviets would be drawn in Afghanistan, US policy thus coincided with Pakistani fears of a possible move by the Soviets southwards. Discarded as a friend in the decade of the 70s, in the 80s Pakistan became, in a complete reversal of roles, a front-line state in the free world’s attempt to contain Soviet expansionism and the grateful recipient of generous US military and economic aid in the Third World along with the other close US Allies and maximum beneficiaries of aid, viz Egypt, Israel and Turkey. While we may proclaim otherwise, the Afghanistan crisis saved Pakistan economically and helped re-arm us militarily. In 1980, we were bankrupt economically and our military machine was going to seed, badly needing replacement and modernization. We also became the recipient of aid and grants from other western countries and international aid agencies. By shoring up Afghan Mujahideen resistance through the Pakistani conduit (an opportunity to the US such as this so soon after their own ill-advised foray in South East Asia was heaven-sent), Afghanistan was turned into USSR’s “Vietnam”. Through the 70s we had had our own brush with economic disaster, practicing a social democracy that was neither socialistic or democratic. Whole-hog nationalisation (which in all fairness to late Zulfikar Ali Bhutto had some merit at that time) had brought us economically to ruins, the widespread electoral fraud protest against Zulfikar Ali Bhutto’s PPP was as much a revolt against economic hardships as it was against the dictatorial rule under the garb of democracy. The street violence was tailor-made for Army intervention, Ziaul Haq’s 90 days turning into about 4,000 days and some. Priding itself on supporting democracies, the US swallowed its democratic principles at the altar of convenience and unabashedly supported the Zia Regime through the difficult years of the Afghan War. What started as a containment exercise turned inadvertently into a drive for the soul of the Soviet Union. Where Vietnam had badly divided and demoralized the American people, it had stopped short of destroying the US as a Superpower. The Soviet Union was fought to a military stalemate in Afghanistan, the repercussions in the form of the destruction of Soviet internal fabric, social, political and economic, is an ongoing happening. The crude, rustic Mujahideen decapacitated the military and (by proxy) the economic foundations of USSR and all its vassal states. The Soviet military did withdraw in good military order, the soldiers went back to a country bankrupted by an inefficient, centralized control over the economy, with the masses aspiring for greater political freedom. On top of this, Gorbachev’s leadership set a disastrous course by the putting of political freedom ahead of economic emancipation (in contrast to Deng Xiaoping’s measured policy of allowing of political liberties in a gradual and controlled manner to follow the opening up of the economy), this spelled disaster for the Soviet Union. The once great Superpower is in domestic tatters and international disarray (while remaining a nuclear power with the world’s largest conventional armed forces). Save being a media star adored by the western leadership and masses (and receiving the Nobel Peace Prize), Gorbachev has brought nothing to the Soviet Union except unrequited hope and grief. As it is, he is furiously backtracking from his own proclaimed reforms, his closest collaborators have either deserted him or been dismissed, in order to stay in power he is increasingly turning to the same methods employed by his predecessor to maintain their despotic and tyrannical rule. As the Gulf War has shown in stark embarrassment, as a Superpower the USSR has ceased to be a major player except for lip-service attention, maybe. If Gorbachev is overthrown, which is very likely, the whole geo-political situation may be upset to the disadvantage of US. While leaders play an extremely pivotal role in the nation’s destiny, it is never wise to base all long-term policies on the political fortunes of one man.

The Afghan Crisis:
The Afghan War has been good and bad for Pakistan. As the conflict dragged on, millions of Afghan refugees flowed into already over-populated Pakistan to escape the relentless Soviet onslaught by air and ground, thereby putting social, political and economic strain on us. Generous aid and grants from western sources shored us up and gave us sustenance, moral and material. Under the cover of the fight for freedom, an evil new breed of criminals dealing in drugs came into their own in Pakistan, with proliferation of weapons common to any guerilla movement, the Kalashnikov (AK-47) brought its own culture into the country. Law and order deteriorated throughout the country, in Karachi Pakistan’s only port city, the breakdown reached endemic proportions. A stage has come where because of the Afghan crisis we are almost into the Medillin Syndrome, a state of affairs when criminals function in the name of justice and justice becomes a crime. This creeping destruction of the fabric of our society has been a terrible price to pay for being the point nation in the winning of the war for the free world against the Soviet brand of socialism.

Our friendship with China and Iran:
Our strong links with our great and friendly neighbour China remains (and must remain) the cardinal focus of our foreign policy. Without any question, China has been always our friend in need. One cannot begin to describe the value of this friendship to us as a nation. Our close association with USA and the Arab monarchies may have prevented us from rendering all out support to our other great friend and neighbour, Iran, in its war against predator Iraq. Influenced by Saudi Arabia and the UAE (they have been more than generous in the moral and material support), we could have hardly spurned them. This has been a great failure on our part and it is very magnanimous of Iran to have come out with total support to us for the cause of a free Kashmir.

The Gulf Crisis and Pakistan:
With the free world’s economic largesse directed increasingly at the freed vassal states of Soviet Russia in Eastern Europe, Pakistan was already bracing itself for reduced military and economic aid when the Gulf Crisis has thrust every other consideration into the background. With its unprovoked and swift military takeover of Kuwait, Iraq’s display of military muscle for its economic and hegemonistic ambitions heralded a clear, present and continuing danger to regional and world peace. Given that Kuwait had bankrolled Iraq upto US$ 15 billion in grants and easy credits in its war against Iran, this was the stuff of rank ingratitude and outright greed. The move was not entirely unexpected, only the timing was a surprise, the pretext, the alleged stealing of oil by Kuwait was ludicrous.

Iraq has never been able to hide its covetous greed for the oil-rich adjacent regions, calculating that the oil wealth would give it the economic latitude to press forward its Pan-Arabism a la Iraqana, the fundamental premise of the Iraqi Baathists, no matter that the “Brothers” in Syria under Hafez Al Assad were estranged. Forced to come to terms with Iran over the Shatt Al Arab dispute, the Iraqis took advantage of the Shah’s exit to repudiate the treaty. With Iran in turmoil and the Iranian Armed Forces in disarray, Iraq treacherously tried to annex the oil-rich Iranian Khuzestan Province in a swift military offensive that initially made a spectacular headway. Despite grievous losses in men and material, Iran consolidated and with deep Islamic fervour and growing nationalism managed to beat the Iraqis back till they had them under their mercy having captured the strategic Fao Peninsula and reached the outskirts of Iraq’s only port city, Basra. With Iraq on the verge of outright defeat, the rich Arab nations (Kuwait among them) pitched in with billions of petro-dollars in outright grants and easy credits to shore up Iraq. With the western nations apprehensive about Iran’s Islamic fundamentalism under Ayatollah Khomeini, Iran was isolated diplomatically and quarantined economically, starving it of weapons and badly needed spares for its western origin equipment whereas Iraq was the recipient of all possible help from all possible quarters. Iran was then subjected to horrifying attacks by Iraq using chemical weapons, the western nations made a proforma protest but looked the other side, a lapse on their part that can never be condoned and that in part is responsible for the present crisis. Virtually defenceless against chemical warfare, impoverished economically, with grievous losses in manpower and left with scarce weaponry and equipment, Iran finally agreed to a ceasefire, in Ayatollah Khomeini’s words, “swallowing a bitter poison”. One incident is starkly indicative of Iraqi ruthlessness, the aerial attack on USS STARK in the Persian Gulf resulted in the deaths of many US sailors, surprisingly in its total pre-occupation with its “inveterate enemy”, Ayatollah Khomeini, the US turned the other cheek, this was a dangerous precedent to give to a regime which only respects force. It was only a matter of time before Iraq turned to the beckoning oil-fields in the rich adjacent regions. The world did wake up to the portents of a new threat but lulled themselves into thinking that at most it would be directed against Israel who were quite capable in defending themselves. US Ambassador to Iraq Alice Gillespie’s naive assertion that “the Iraq-Kuwait border dispute was of no concern to the US” served as a clear green signal to a perennial bully.

Pakistan’s approach to Gulf Crisis:
There may not be as great an affinity in Pakistan for the Kuwaiti royal family as for the Saudi and UAE royal houses but the subsequent potential Iraqi targets, Saudi Arabia and UAE were very much crucial to Pakistan’s own integrity and sovereignty. Iraq has always supported India in opposition to Pakistan in every international forum, Saudi Arabia has always supported Pakistan. Iraq does not recognize the genuine rights of Kashmiris for independence from India, Saudi Arabia has always done so. Saddam Hussain’s “generous” offer to Ms Benazir when she visited Iraq to “deplore” the fact if India (a friend) ever invaded Pakistan (a brother) in the face of continuing Indian ruthlessness in Kashmir was clearly indicative of (1) Iraqi solidarity with Indian secular interests than with Muslim aspirations and (2) continuing hostility for Pakistan. Ms Benazir has confirmed that it took all of her persuasive skills to get Saddam to be at least proforma neutral. Iraq’s move into the Persian Gulf has been secretly welcomed by India which sees the rulers of Saudi Arabia, Iran and UAE inimical to Indian interests. Had it not been for Pakistan as a stumbling block, Indians would have made their own move against the Persian Gulf sometime ago, their influence among the population is already tremendous, just read “Khaleej Times” and “Gulf News” for a few days, they could well be Indian papers except for the proforma lip-service they give to the UAE on Pages 1, 2 and 3. Knowing that Iraq is far from becoming a maritime power, India would have been quite content at this time to let Iraq hold sway over the region to the exclusion of Iran, one of Pakistan’s strong backers. Any situation that is detrimental to Saudi Arabia, Iran, UAE and the other Gulf states can have never been (or should be) acceptable to Pakistan.

The Conduct of Allied War against Iraq:
The Allied Air War against Iraq could have been conducted in a better manner. George Clemenceau rightly said that “war is too important to be left to the generals”. While surgical strikes inside Iraq to subdue Iraq’s Air Force, its Nuclear, Chemical and Biological capability is quite understandable, once these objectives were achieved, the Allied air power should have totally diverted their attention onto Iraq’s Occupation forces in Kuwait or intercession of any kind from Iraq (like the search for Scud missile batteries). Applying Clausewitz’s first principle of war, the selection and maintenance of the aim of liberating Kuwait should have been strictly adhered to (as it is, even an ally such as Gorbachev has started feeling that the Allied Forces have exceeded the UN mandate). Continued allied air attacks against Iraq, where certainly innocent civilians would come in the line of fire, has upset Muslim sensibilities all over the world. No one in his right mind can ever justify Iraq’s annexation of Kuwait, why else has then the irrational street support for Saddam Hussain turned into a broad support from the intelligentsia and the masses? The tragedy (and farce) is that Saddam Hussian, who started the whole fracas as a good oil Mongolian invader of the old school has now turned around and adopted a holier-than-thou mantle of a Salahuddin-type of the Arab world, wielding his “Islamic” sword against the favourite enemies of the Muslim masses. He has cleverly stoked Arab and Islamic fears about “infidels” on the sacred earth of the Kingdom, he has intelligently exploited the long and unjustifiable Israeli occupation of Jordanian and Syrian lands by linking the evacuation of Israelis from those territories with his withdrawal from Kuwait, he has evoked the age-old suspicion among the Islamic masses that western countries foster quarrels deliberately among Muslim countries (1) out of their own vested capitalist interest (2) to keep Muslim countries weak and (3) to keep Israel strong and in the end he has played the mass resentment among all the Muslim masses (Arab and non-Arab) of the playboy image of disparate Arab princes and wealthy citizenry, exploiting the latent hostility of the “have not” Muslim masses against the few monarchies who are among the “have”. All this may or may not be sheer nonsense but the Muslim masses do not seem to think so, as time passes the growing cacophony coming into chorus may even effect the resolve of key countries. There is now general skepticism about US intentions, not only in the streets but also among the intelligentsia. The common logic believes that if the US had to make a stand against aggression, why not against Israel’s continued occupation of lands acquired by aggression more than two decades ago? These are real concerns that have to be addressed, it undercuts long-term US credibility in the region, erosion of that would be counter-productive to moral support for the proposed New World Order. The US has restrained retaliatory strikes by Israel, at the cost of US$ 15 billion or so for Israel’s coffers, black-mail by any other name. The physical involvement of the Israelis will be the kiss of death for the Saudis. Saddam may go down in flames, the Arab monarchies will not be far behind, (Hector and Achilles?). The Middle East may be Lebanized, the whole area a region of permanent fluid tension and centrifugal forces in disparate competition for extremism of various kind.

Continued conflict is no solution, there will be no winners, all (except perhaps Israel and India) will be losers. Saddam Hussain, who once proclaimed his secular Baathist credentials from every high roof, has very happily embraced the Islamic banner, the streets of Muslim countries have responded with a mindless reaction which may save him his life and his throne, and if not that, to our lasting helplessness, certainly his name in Muslim posterity.

Pakistan’s approach to Gulf Crisis and Indian duplicity:
On the 3rd of August, 1990 it made great sense to make a unilateral airlift of troops (even a token force) to Saudi Arabia and UAE, the delayed action has meant that we are now tarred and feathered as part of a greater US plan, that Bangladesh has joined in protection of the Holy Places in Mecca and Medina cuts no ice with the detractors, only the hard realists understand the debt of gratitude we owe Saudi Arabia for continued generosity over the years, not counting the agreement we have with them for providing military forces in time of need. On the other hand India is content to continue its good relations with both Iraq and Israel. A fair part of Iraqi Airways aircraft as well as Iraqi Air Force transport planes are parked on Indian runways. India’s secular and regional interests coincide with Iraq, only Pakistan and Iran stand in the way respectively. A maritime power, India knows that Iraq’s browbeating of its neighbours is greatly to India’s advantage, after all how long after the war can the US Navy keep the peace steaming up and down the Persian Gulf? By default, India becomes a surrogate Superpower, at least in the region. Indian duplicity (no-loss position) has shown its teeth by giving refuelling facilities to US aircraft even while giving Iraqi civil and military aircraft sanctuary. What is the quid pro quo given to the Indians by the Iraqis and US for the various facilities? Mr Henry Rowen’s discussions (closed Seminar) with Indian Armed Forces Chiefs in Poona in mid-December 1990 has made Pakistan apprehensive, more so because he was believed to have been joined by the US Commander-in-Chief of the Pacific Fleet (CINCPAC) and retired General Sunderji, former Indian Chief of Army Staff and architect of Exercise “Brass Tacks”, the cover for total war to destroy the Pakistan Armed Forces in 1986. Though the stratagem fortunately failed to get off the ground at the last minute, General Sunderji is a known exponent of Indian hegemony in the region, only the Pakistan Armed Forces stand in the way. To protect their vulnerable flank in the Middle East and to ensure that the vacuum is satisfactorily made up over the long-term, the US could well be tempted to ignore moves in the region, like it has done in Sri Lanka, thereby changing totally the geo-political circumstances to our lasting detriment. Given that US and India share perceptions about Pakistan’s suspected nuclear capabilities in the weapons field, an Indian raid on our known nuclear facilities is not beyond the realm of possibilities, many analysts here believe that the world may even look the other way. The growing equation between Iran and Pakistan also points to a new possible bogey for the West once Iraq has been conveniently disposed of. With Pakistan having its handful dealing with India, Iran could then be neutralized in the same manner as Iraq despite the fact that Iran has throughout the Gulf Crisis acted on the highest principles. For us it becomes crucially important not to be isolated, to assuage any US fears about our intentions by keeping an on-going dialogue and to build upon the relationship, not to terminate it in the manner that we are gradually being drawn into. If the US should ever shift its support for our freedom to acceptance of India’s hegemony in the region it would be detrimental to our interests.

Arab-Israel Problem:
Israel must be encouraged by the US to open negotiations to abandon its occupied Arab lands forthwith. The Israeli connection may be militarily necessary for USA in the short run, politically it is a lasting disaster, for the US and for those who believe that the US represents a sure guarantee for peace in the region. Israel must have a place in the sun secure behind their own frontiers but they have to give up the lands occupied by them in 1967. Israel is a reality that the Arab and Muslim countries have to learn to live with, even Yasser Arafat has said that he is prepared to recognize Israel’s existence. Is not Israel peace with Egypt holding even after a decade? It is for our leaders to educate the masses about the real issues that affect Pakistan today and will do so in the future. We must also demand from Yasser Arafat the same support we have always been giving for the Palestinian cause. The requirements of leadership demands that the leaders educate their following, that the masses are led, not that their emotions should make their leaders into followers of street politics.

Pakistan’s Policies:
In a world of confusion and intangibles we must study all the issues, we are affected by extremes but we must make the right decisions, out of a pragmatic combination of various options. Let us go over the home-truths, Pakistan must (1) protect the Holy Places of Mecca and Medina with all its might, a token force of 11,000 for Saudi Arabia is not enough, this has to be expanded with the same stipulation that they will not be used in any invasion of Iraq (2) support Saudi Arabia, the UAE and other littoral states out of an obligation rendered by their years of unstinted support to us morally and materially (3) fulfil an obligation to the US because of their massive economic and military aid to us in our time of need, let us not be ingrates about this (4) enhance our strong relationship with Iran and Turkey by moves for closer association in military fields. Go for a mutual defence pact with Iran immediately (5) endeavour to bring the war in Afghanistan to a swift, satisfactory solution (6) work as an intermediary to allay mutual suspicions in the region (especially in Iran), continued US interest in this region remains in Pakistan’s interest (7) ensure that Israel is not seen as an ally with which Iraq (and India) will try and label us with (8) coordinate the non-Arab Muslim world’s potential to support the status quo in the Middle East as it existed pre-August, 1990 (9) prepare ourselves to repel threats directly or indirectly from India (10) economically gird ourselves to face any further deterioration of the world situation (11) bring our own domestic house in order by making a National Government that should include all relevant Political parties, not just special interest factions and (12) conduct a domestic campaign to highlight and bring home to our gullible public the real face of Saddam Hussain, that which not only performed excesses against his own people and that of neighbouring lands (all Muslim) but (in preference to his friendship with India) never ever rendered support to us over Kashmir.

Pakistan-US relationship:
After spending a decade being the cornerstone of US policy in Asia, Pakistan finds itself reduced to an albatross unceremoniously cast aside. In 1971, PM Chou En Lai of China eulogised Pakistan’s role to Henry Kissinger, then National Security Advisor to the US President Richard Nixon, in arranging the secret visit which led to the historic opening of relations between US and China, “do not forget the bridges that you have used”, Chou En Lai said, “you may have to use it again”. Two decades later, Pakistan finds itself in strategic danger of being discarded again as a friend, the nuclear bogey suddenly again raising its head. Having contributed as a front line State to the ultimate dismantling of the Soviet Empire, a direct result of the crushing setback given to the Soviet Armed Forces in Afghanistan, and having to pay a heavy price in return by domestic social disorder (refugees, drugs and Kalashnikovs), Pakistanis may be forgiven for being perplexed (and better) at this sudden turnaround. Given the economic vagaries of the Gulf crisis, the cut-off of US economic aid has been a double whammy on us at the worst possible time. The horrible economic situation is just the harbinger of things to come. Before this century is over, isolation from the US may well make us, in late Z.A. Bhutto’s words, “eat grass”.

While we must not forsake our friendship with the US simply over bruised egos, there is no harm in setting a really independent, thoroughly pragmatic diplomatic course, taking into account our own regional apprehensions of India’s intentions. We must bring reason to bear on the individual Americans that some of us are privileged to know, they have an in-built capacity to listen to reason and we are not bereft of all their goodwill. Our military spending is only a deterrent to Indian expansionism, the US just has to ask the countries on India’s periphery their fears. The salvation of the Gulf lies in a peace ensured by an Islamic Force in the Saudi Arabian desert comprised of troops from Pakistan, Iran, Turkey, Egypt, Syria with contingents from smaller countries like Bangladesh, Sudan, etc. At the same time, to assuage western interests in having a continued stable source of supply of oil for the world, the western Allies can contribute by earmarking air power to back up this Force, preferably locate them off-shore on aircraft carriers or even leased on-shore airfields. War can never be a permanent solution, history is witness to the fact that it serves only to create newer problems.

Governments cannot succumb to the dictates of mob rule. Mob rule has no rationality, it is based on emotions rather than the interplay of both mind and heart which is the rational for democracy’s right of the majority to rule. Street power is usually inspired by radical thought (mostly that element which fails miserably at the electoral hustings), ideas here have short shrift, sane counsel even less. Though USA and Pakistan have had problems in their relationship from time to time for short periods over the past four decades, for the most part the mutual feelings have been warm, in danger today is the obliteration of years of labour in establishing an equitable rapport. In Third World countries protest demonstrations sometimes do wield unusual power, in western countries the equivalent are public polls conducted and aired by the media which, with due respect, can be equated in clout comparison to the street power of Third World countries, because in both cases a powerful minority try to use extremist means (from which they derive their power) to influence the majority.

We may feel aggrieved at being ostracised now that US aims in the region have been achieved, it is inconceivable that given the warning signals we should not have braced ourselves for the fact that our mutual closeness would dissipate as Afghanistan’s importance as a Common Cause faded and the US gained preponderance over the USSR as a Superpower. Pakistan and the US are two disparate countries that have been friends despite differences of religion, culture and political thought, coming together because the national interests of both coincided in supersession of those issues that separated them. The individual national objectives of USA and Pakistan have come into confrontation with a vengeance and are threatening to ruin the friendship of years. To preserve the existing relationship, it is important to view each other’s national perceptions and aspirations with dispassion and accommodation, fitting them into a new level of relationship that will withstand mob dictate (and public polls). It is also important to separate fact from fiction, in the words of John Burroughs, “to treat your facts with imagination is one thing, but to imagine your facts is another”. Banking on Gorbachev, the US may face a rude shock if he should go, already he is himself engaged in an exercise distancing himself from the bombing of Iraq. Just imagine the scenario if Gorbachev (or his successor) should ask the Allies to cease all action in the Gulf, simultaneously asking Iraq to evacuate Kuwait, saying that they would be replaced by Soviet (and like-minded) forces for an interim period. In one go, this gambit would put Soviet Union back on the map as the Third World’s greatest champion and destroy the substance of US policy in the region and the world. The US should not burn bridges that it has built up with friends over many years. With this background of events unfolding, we are now at an uncertain crossroads that may be of some loss to the USA, if not at this time but in the foreseeable future, it could mean unmitigated disaster for Pakistan. Pakistan’s main concerns upto the Gulf crisis were, in order of priority (1) independence from regional hegemony (2) Freedom for Kashmir (3) Freedom for Afghanistan (4) Economic emancipation leading to autarky and (5) a separate homeland for the Palestinians. Bring upto the No 3 slot, the independence and sovereignty of our friends in the Middle East, including Saudi Arabia and Iran. USA’s main concern have been well expressed by President Bush in the annunciation of his idea of a “New World Order” which would see the US along with like-minded nations defending the freedom for all nations on this Earth from repression from any quarter while ensuring freedom from hunger, want, misery and privation. Part of this concern is the threat of nuclear proliferation in which Pakistan’s capability is suspect in western circles, duly orchestrated by the Jewish (and Indian) Lobby which has an inordinate influence over US Congress and the western media. The premise of some of our religious parties that the US is against Islam is ridiculous. Pakistan is not a secular country, USA is, whereas our perception of national identity are founded on our great religion, Islam, any leader of USA who propagates any religion for State purposes would get short shrift. If President Bush were ever to even suggest a “holy war” against Islam he would be impeached. For us it is easy to base most of our aspirations on the precepts and requirements of our religion, for the Americans, with their basic secularism, it is not surprising to misunderstand our emphasis on religion as fundamentalism, the new universal catchword for Islamic extremism, even associated with Middle East terrorism supposedly exported by Iran. While it is important for Pakistan not to misunderstand American confusion about Islam’s more orthodox teachings, duly exploited by vested interests in the western media, fires duly fuelled by Indian and Israeli lobbies in the western world, it is also important for Pakistan to attempt and rectify the anomaly in the minds of the US. Islam is not an extremist religion and Pakistan is not run by extremists, almost all mainline extremists failed at the electoral hustings in October 1990, thus displaying their vociferous support to be one having a narrow base. Oil has a major influence on the American way and quality of life, it is therefore true that the two major concerns of USA in the present Gulf crisis are (1) to secure Middle East oil and (2) to destroy Iraq’s menace to its neighbours through its military capability, the fact that many Arab countries are united with USA in the war against Iraq is mainly because if Iraq’s potential for mayhem is not the stuff of fantasy anymore, Iraq has engaged in two major invasions and occupations of neighbouring territory in less than a decade. In gobbling up a fellow Arab country, he went past a psychological Fail-Safe line (1) triggering-off fears in the western world that he was after the whole oil-rich Persian Gulf region including the Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia and (2) driving the fear of God into the Arab monarchies who suddenly found themselves defenceless against his vast, battle hardened war machine (mostly bankrolled by them) and (3) upsetting traditional Arab leader nations like Egypt and Syria who found themselves left suddenly with intermittent influence in the Arab world.

US grievances:
The basic US grievance against us is the suspected Pakistani nuclear weapon capability. Our contention is that our nuclear programme is peaceful and we are ready for international inspection if India accepts that her facilities be also so subjected. Americans may well ask, if the fears about Pakistan’s nuclear weapon programme are true, why does Pakistan need a nuclear weapon? In this region Pakistan has only India to fear and India’s military dominance is force-multiplied if not confronted with a similar threat as a deterrent. The application of the Pressler Amendment at this time wherein the US President has not certified to the US Congress as he does every year that Pakistan does not have a nuclear weapons programme, has become suspect in Pakistani eyes because (1) its sudden enforcement after a decade of being put on the shelf (during the height of the Afghan crisis) (2) the failure of the US to apply the same yardstick to Israel and India and (3) the incessant western media propaganda against a so-called Islamic Bomb. With the stoppage of US economic and military aid to Pakistan, the US led Allied action against Iraq to destroy its suspected nuclear, chemical and biological capabilities has led us to believe that we may well be next on the list. No less a person than the Pakistan COAS, General Aslam Beg, has articulated this concern in public forums. Purely on the strength of the criteria being applied for Iraq, there may indeed be reason for concern, given Indian interest in subjugating us there is a coincidence of objectives here which may even be cause for alarm. On the other hand, we must not allow ourself to be boxed into a corner by Indian propaganda acting on western fears. Why should we help the Indians in translating present hypothesis into reality, we must believe US intention to the contrary. For those who believe that even if we had the nuclear weapon, we should beat our drum, no goodwill can come out of doing so. Israel has had nuclear weapons since before 1973, do they accept the existence? Sometimes discretion is the better part of valour and there is no profit in such self-defeating propaganda.

Pakistan’s Grievances:
As the world’s largest democracy and also the most generous donor of largesse to the Less Developed Countries (LDCs), the US has a responsibility to the comity of nations whereby they should apply an equal yardstick for all their fear and suspicions. Pakistan has been the subject of many aggressions by India, the last one rendered Pakistan in two in 1971, albeit aided by some abominable mistakes within the country. The raison d’etre for Pakistan existence as also for its previous eastern partner, now called Bangladesh, is that we are majority Muslim areas of South Asia. The fate of the Muslim minority (or for that matter the Sikhs) should serve as the casus belli for our separate identities. The continuing communal violence directed against Muslims in the so-called secular India is not really unknown to the West, the people adhering to the Islamic faith are being subjected to atrocities which no story from within present day Kuwait can match. To top it all, the Kashmir dispute has come into sharp focus by a widespread revolt by the Muslim majority against brutal Indian rule. Very much like Kuwait, there are UN resolutions about Kashmir, the present turmoil is an ongoing process, why then, one may well ask, are these resolutions not being implemented, and if they are considered redundant, why then are not new initiatives being taken? There are more subjugated people in Kashmir than in Palestine and Kuwait combined. All the world’s vested interest cannot hide this fact forever from the US public, that is the essence of US democracy, an open and free society that will respond to suppression of freedom, a basic feeling for the underdog is an endearing American quality, recognizing the US as a Superpower, do we have the right to take ourselves into isolation and risk losing potential support for the Kashmiri people for the sake of riding the crest of present fickle public opinion? If we isolate ourselves from the US, we will isolate ourselves from a greater part of the world. Better that we should sit across a table and work out our grievances, pragmatic real-politik points to this.

Above all, Pakistan must have a role along with Iran in the new security set up which will replace present regional balances after the Gulf War. Iran has a geographical position that cannot be ignored, it has a basic raw material in oil that keeps it from economic apocalypse, its traditional rival in the region, Iraq cannot put its head up anymore for 20 years, if not more. It may be good rhetoric to proclaim self-reliance, independence, etc, but we cannot afford to be ignored in the new security arrangement in offing post-Gulf war. It is in the fitness of things that our natural collaboration with our great neighbour, Iran, is seen as a major and natural peacekeeping strength in the region, God forbid that we should be cast in the same radical mould with which the world presently perceives Yemen, Libya, PLO, even Jordan, etc and that India should be expected by default to fulfil the role of regional superpower.

Conclusion:
Differences must be worked out between the US and Pakistan to mutual advantage of both the nations. The present centrifugal forces acting to disturb our relationship are doing so out of ignorance, bad faith or a combination of both. For us it makes no sense to leave the world mainstream and join the bunch of extremist nations, some of whom have the oil that allows them to afford such a luxury. A population in excess of 100 million demands of us that we must have responsible foreign policy, measuring all our responses in the international field and instead of doing a King Lear as a nation, sorting out problems between friends by dialogue. One must remember the Chinese Proverb, “do not use a hatchet to remove a fly from your friend’s forehead”.

Did you enjoy this post? Why not leave a comment below and continue the conversation, or subscribe to my feed and get articles like this delivered automatically to your feed reader.