The crossroads of destiny
If evidence of the fickle nature of destiny is to be recorded, there can be no better example than the crossroads that Pakistan has again been suddenly thrust in. Five years ago, with the winding down of the Afghan War, Pakistan’s utility to the US, indeed to the entire Western world, had dwindled to the lowest ebb in the history of the country. From the high of being a cornerstone of US policy, Pakistan had sunk so far as to almost being declared a “terrorist nation”. If the Gulf War had not intervened in 1990, the state of US-Pakistan relationship would have deteriorated much faster, with or sans Ms Bhutto, her ouster by GIK in August 1990 coinciding with the obnoxious Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. Though one of the first to offer and send troops to Saudi Arabia as part of the anti-Iraq alliance, Gen Beg’s “Strategic Defiance” concept left Pakistan up the debt creek without the paddle used effectively by Egypt to get its US $ 10 billion PLUS debt forgiven in payment for its services.
Whatever AQ Khan and party have achieved have been due to late Zulfikar Ali Bhutto’s single-minded obsession to get a nuclear deterrent to equal India’s Bomb, even if Pakistanis “had to eat grass”, to quote late Bhutto. A suspicion permeated in western countries that oil-rich Muslim countries like Libya were behind the funding of an “Islamic Bomb”, a TV documentary to that effect being aired quite extensively. Z.A Bhutto even claimed that Kissinger had warned him that if he persisted with his nuclear pursuits “a horrible example would be made of him” or words to that effect. In any case, the serious US concern about nuclear proliferation had reduced US AID to Pakistan to almost zero by the middle of President Carter’s term of office.
The Afghan war changed things dramatically. With the Russians a helicopter ride away from the warm waters of the Indian Ocean, Pakistan was suddenly back very much in demand. After the initial US aid (about US $ 300 million) offered by President Carter was refused by Zia as “peanuts”, he (and Pakistan) made a miraculous transformation overnight from a universal pariah into the west’s most steadfast bulwark. Pakistan became the recipient of massive US economic and military aid. Forgotten were Zia’s “fundamentalism” and his hanging of the late Z.A Bhutto on flimsy legal grounds, pragmatism and real-politik ensured that the dictator became the new champion of democracy, that “charity” not beginning at home. Today, it is also conveniently forgotten that Ms Benazir Bhutto was then vehemently supporting the puppet Karmal Government and adamant about stopping all aid and assistance to the Afghan Mujahideen. Memories are usually short in Pakistan, the written word of Ms Bhutto (The Challenge Ahead, 1983) is a historical record that cannot be easily erased. One can understand, however, that this irrational pro-Soviet anti-American stance was more a reaction in keeping with her visceral hatred for Zia but also because her two brothers had a safe haven in Kabul. She was right in forecasting that Pakistan would pay a heavy price for the Afghan war in the form of refugees, gun running, drug smuggling, terrorism, etc, this was a price we had to pay. As we were fronting the US proxy war in Afghanistan through the Mujahideen, in a sense we were fighting not only for the survival of our Islamic way of life but our own independence. This was a war that could not have been avoided. While Zia must be eulogised for his stand against the Soviet superpower, he (and his associates) criminally failed to ensure the benefits and assurances for Pakistan that should have been possible in the favourable geo-political circumstances. In essence, a little bit of Bazaar-bargaining about issues such as nuclear capability and the requirement thereof, debt forgiveness, post-war reconstruction and rehabilitation etc would have resulted in many concessions by the US in our favour. There is a lasting suspicion that in their greed to siphon off the enormous funds meant for the Mujahideen and the war effort, the ruling coterie bartered away their negotiation chips. Pakistan lost a golden chance in not insisting that they could not collaborate with the US unless its nuclear programme was recognized at par with India’s and Israel.
The public eulogisation of war dead had become the favourite Soviet national pastime after World War II. Death Anniversaries were occasion for family picnics and celebrations in the cemeteries. Now for the first time, the bodies of Soviet youth started arriving home in secrecy from Afghanistan. At the same time the centralized economy, already under strain due to inefficiency, corruption and lack of the dynamics of free enterprise, crumbled against the strain of maintaining a long counter-guerilla campaign. Gorbachev was built up by the western media by clever stoking of his ego as the ultimate saviour of the Soviet Union, in fact he was a carefully chosen instrument for the destruction of the Soviet empire from within. In the pell-mell Gorbachev rush to adopt “glasnost” openness, over political reform, “perestroika”, he lost control events moving at such speed that even the tough Yeltsin who replaced him became powerless to save the Soviet Union from disintegration. Yeltsin saved motherland Russia by extricating his country out of the straitjacket Soviet orbit and creating the loose Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS). The Central Asian Republics (CARs), a resource rich region mostly of Muslim majority, became free all of a sudden but is still ruled over by former communist apparatchiks turned sudden democrats. Instead of winding down, the Afghan war re-started, this time between the Mujahideen themselves. Former nationals of other countries in the Mujahideen ranks turned from being heroes to potential terrorists in their own and other countries. Drug trafficking which was ignored became a major problem as the flow of funds dried up and warring factions ran short of money. Above all, Pakistan’s nuclear potential was rediscovered as a potential threat, an “Islamic Bomb” in Larry Pressler’s recent words.
Pakistan has not been singled out for bias by the US as much as we would like to think. With the cold war over, the biggest US concern is nuclear proliferation. All over the world tin-pot dictators who were supported by the US and the west during the height of the cold war suddenly went out of fashion as the imperatives for containing communism vanished. At a most convenient time during this changeover in policy Zia’s C-130 crashed, saving the US from future embarrassment. Both the Bush and successor Clinton Administrations are merely enforcing the new US global policy post cold-war, a world with nuclear weapons in what the US considers safe hands only. Being an Islamic ideological State and given our relationship with Iran and other Muslim countries considered radical by the US we would be naive to be considered “safe”. While we rightfully may feel aggrieved, we cannot expect the US to change its global policy to suit ours. Former US Ambassador Oakley kept repeating (in private mostly and in public sometimes) that unless we changed our nuclear policy, US laws would automatically obligate the stopping of aid to us one day. US diplomats in Pakistan across the board generally favoured us despite walking a fine line with respect to US laws in keeping the aid which was in the pipeline to keep flowing through a legal loophole, particularly vital military spares. It is now considered fair game in Pakistan to vilify Oakley, but we cannot thank this man enough for risking his career and probably paying for it. However, one cannot keep a good man down for long, he has bounced back in public life via Somalia and remains one of Pakistan’s good US friends, a very firm admirer of the qualities of the Pakistan Armed Forces.
Pakistan cannot ever risk an adversarial stance with the US of A. We may not like certain US policies but one should take the opportunity of dialogue to explain things instead of adopting a confrontation position. We must always appeal to the US penchant for justice and fairplay, Ms Benazir’s policy is right in seeking to de-isolate Pakistan. Her media personality may have particularly strong acceptance in both the developed and developing worlds, however, the circumstances have now changed overnight dramatically in favour of Pakistan. She can deal with the US and the west what about her commitment to Afghanistan and the CARs? With the Nationalists and Communists gaining sizeable electoral votes in the recent Russian election, the return of a (modified) “Soviet bogey” is now very much a nightmare reality for the western psyche. As the last throw of the dice for reformation, Yeltsin’s position is increasingly beginning to look like “Custer’s last stand”. The Russian people have voted mostly to support a movement to reform the Soviet Union. Such an eventuality would put paid to all US cold war plans. The one important difference with the Cold War days is the CARs have become the vital ground for contention in the economic and ideological battle for the resurgence (and containment thereof) of Russian domination. If the Republics have to survive economically without Russian tutelage, they have to open up a secure lifeline to the south, through Afghanistan on the two axis, Herat-Kandahar and Mazaar-i-Sharif-Jalalabad, coming through Pakistan to the sea. In this respect Pakistan’s geo-political position becomes the most important cornerstone for democracy and freedom in the emerging new world.
In essence, Pakistan is once again at the crossroads of destiny on the verge of being re-discovered as an ally. As a bridge between the Middle East and South Asia-South East Asia it serves also as a conduit between CARs and the Indian Ocean. In 1971, Chou En Lai exhorted Kissinger, quote “do not forget the bridge (sic Pakistan) that you have used, you may have to use it again”, unquote or words to that effect. There are misgivings and suspicions on both sides which have to be resolved in the higher interests of freedom. The US will have to assess for itself the leadership in Pakistan it will have to deal with in the future. One has undeniable charisma in the west but lacks credibility in the Central Asian region, the other one has an excellent working relationship with Afghanistan and the CARs but may lack mutual confidence with the US and the west. The recent elections have separated the bogey of fundamentalism from the moderates, that is an important starting point for building a new relationship, one of equality and mutual respect.
While it is too early to be waiting on the beaches looking at the horizon for the smoke of ships flying the Stars and Stripes bearing aid for Pakistan, Afghanistan and the CARs, this is a future reality as surely as night follows day and day follows night. While it is important for Pakistan to have the best possible relationship with the US, it is also important for the US to look pragmatically at the new emerging possibilities to retain the initiative and goodwill. This will only be possible when Pakistan again becomes the cornerstone of US policy in the region.
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.
Comments
No comments yet.
Leave a comment