|
Ever since Pakistan army’s duplicitous post 9/11 U-turn of hunting with the
hounds and running with the hare, while the US giving it the status of
‘frontline ally in the war against terror’, kept giving it arms and monetary
aid, this writer often asked how long this flawed equation could continue. Most
of the arms Pakistan received from the US were not applicable for
counter-terrorism operations and got added to Pak army’s arsenal meant for use
against India. It took ten years and the loss of almost 2,800 coalition
casualties for the US to decide upon course-correction vis-à-vis the Pak army
and Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) agency. The fissures following the killing
of Osama bin Laden in the meticulously planned operation by US special forces on
May 2, 2011, at Abbotabad, widened over the months, causing serious problems
between Pakistan’s ever-powerful army and its civilian leadership.
Dealing With a Troubled Strategic Ally
Two recent developments that marked a record low in the plummeting US-Pak
relationship happen to be rather ironically timed coincidences. The first was
the US attack killing 26 Pakistani soldiers on 26 November 2011, exactly three
years after ten Pakistani terrorists attacked Mumbai. The second was US
announcing a cut in aid to Pakistan almost 40 years after sending its 7th Fleet
into Indian waters to support Pakistan, which had provoked the third
India-Pakistan war in December 1971. Pakistan waged both the 1965 and 1971wars
against India with weapons doled out to it by the US.
Ratcheting up pressure on its “troubled strategic ally,” leaders of the US
negotiating panel, comprised of armed services committees from both parties in
the House and Senate including Republican Senator John McCain, agreed to freeze
$700 million in US aid to Pakistan, until it offered to help in the fight
against improvised explosive devices (IEDs) in the region.
IEDs used by terrorists have been the cheapest and most effective weapons
against US and coalition troops in Afghanistan as they struggle to fight a
resurgent Taliban. Many are made using ammonium nitrate, a common fertilizer
shipped across the border from Pakistan to Afghanistan. The freeze on US aid was
agreed as part of a defence bill that is expected to be passed soon. “The vast
majority of the material used to make improvised explosive devices used against
US forces in Afghanistan originates from two fertilizer factories inside
Pakistan,” McCain said in the Senate recently.
With $20 billion allocated for security and economic aid since 2001, much of it
in the form of reimbursements for assistance in fighting militants, Pakistan has
been one of the largest recipients of US foreign aid. While the cutback
announced is only a small proportion of the $20 billion, it may lead to greater
cuts as calls in US grow shriller to penalise Islamabad for not only failing to
act against militant groups, but worst, helping them.
By July 2011, the strain in US-Pak relations increased after Chairman, US Joint
Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen reportedly said that the Pakistan
government had “sanctioned” the kidnap, torture and murder of journalist Saleem
Shahzad. Later in September, prior to his retirement, Admiral Mullen while
addressing a US Senate panel accused Pakistan’s Inter Services Intelligence (ISI)
of supporting the Jalaluddin Haqqani militant network which attacked the U.S.
Embassy in Kabul.
Pakistan was reported to have subsequently arrested military officers suspected
of spying for US intelligence agencies and decided to expel more than a 100 US
military trainers and tighten the process of granting visas to US military
personnel. That move provoked an immediate reaction of slashing US aid, already
a subject of heated debate within the US administration since the killing of bin
Laden. Expressing increasing frustration with Pakistan’s efforts in the war
against terror, US law makers reportedly made numerous proposals to make US aid
to Pakistan conditional on more cooperation in fighting militants such as the
Haqqani network, which Washington believes operates out of Pakistan and attacks
US troops in Afghanistan.
Relationship at its Lowest Ebb?
In July, there were further reactions of bluster and threat by Pakistan. The
bluster came after Washington’s announcement of suspension of $800 million worth
of security aid, when Pakistan’s military spokesman Major General Athar Abbas
told a foreign news agency, “The army in the past as well as at present has
conducted successful military operations using its own resources without any
external support whatsoever”. Abbas referred to an extraordinary statement
issued by Pak Army Chief General Ashfaq Kayani on June 9 as part of the bin
Laden fallout, which recommended that U.S. military aid be redirected towards
civilians. The suspended aid reportedly included about $300 million to reimburse
Pakistan for some of the costs of deploying more than 100,000 soldiers along the
Afghan border, (though Pakistan claims to have deployed 140,000 troops in the
northwest) to do more to crack down on militants, such as the Al-Qaeda-linked
Haqqani network, who use its soil to attack within Afghanistan. The US also
depends on Pakistan as a sea port and land corridor for moving its military
supplies in convoys of trucks by road into Afghanistan, which Taliban and other
terrorist groups have attacked umpteen times.
The threats came from Pakistan’s defence minister Chaudhry Ahmad Mukhtar who
piped out that troops would be pulled back from nearly 1,100 check posts set up
along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border, as his country could not afford to keep
forces deployed there following the suspension of US military assistance.
Clarifying that $300 million of the suspended aid were specifically meant for
troops serving in the troubled tribal region, he further claimed that the
proposed US move would sabotage efforts against the Taliban and Al-Qaeda in the
region, and that if the raids continued there could be cross-border fighting.
Referring to the controversy over the Shamsi airbase, reportedly used by US
drones, Mukhtar said the US, through the UAE, had been allowed the use of the
airbase for ‘non-lethal weaponry, such as unarmed drones, and as a logistics
support site’ “The understanding was that the drones would fly from Shamsi base
but only for surveillance…They were not supposed to be lethal, and the next
thing we knew they were using it for military attacks,” the Minister quipped.
While this problem, Mukhtar said, could be resolved if the US and Pakistan came
to some “arrangement”, he said American military trainers should leave the
country because they were seen to be connected with Raymond Davis, a CIA
contractor who was arrested earlier this year in Lahore after he shot and killed
two armed Pakistani men. Responding to US’ assertion that Al-Qaeda chief Ayman
al-Zawahiri was in Pakistan’s tribal areas, Mukhtar hoped that the US would not
act on its own like the May 2 raid against Osama bin Laden in the garrison city
of Abbotabad. “This time round, we hope the Americans will work with the
Pakistanis and share their intelligence,” he said. However, as per recent
reports, Islamabad has closed the border crossings used by US Coalition forces
to transfer fuel and other supplies for their troops in Afghanistan.
On December 12, 2011, a senior Pakistani military official was cited by a
foreign news agency from Islamabad, stating that Pakistan will shoot down any US
drone that intrudes its airspace as per new directives. According to the new
Pakistani defence policy, the official was quoted as saying, “Any object
entering into our airspace, including US drones, will be treated as hostile and
(would) be shot down”. Pakistan Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani was reported
to have warned the US and NATO that any future cross-border attack would be met
with a ‘detrimental response’. “The democratic government would not allow a
similar attack on the country’s sovereignty and any attempt in future will
definitely meet the detrimental response,” he said.
Afghanistan and the US have frequently criticised Pakistan for not doing enough
to target sanctuaries on its soil from where terrorists regularly launch attacks
against NATO troops in Afghanistan. The Afghan government has also accused
Pakistan of firing hundreds of rockets into Kunar over the past few months and
killing at least 40 people, an allegation denied by Pakistan.
Since 2004, US drones are estimated to have carried out more than 300 attacks
inside Pakistan. On 28 November Maj Gen Abbas reiterated that no shots were
fired from the two posts in Pakistan’s Mohmand Tribal Agency, that are situated
330 yards behind a mountain ridge, beyond which are Afghanistan’s Nangarhar and
Kunar provinces. Pakistan does not believe NATO troops could have mistaken the
posts as Taliban militant bases. “We are not saying that this was a deliberate
attack. But we are not ruling out such a possibility.”
According to retired Air Marshal Ayaz A Khan, “Pakistan’s strong response by
shutting down NATO supply routes, and resolve to reduce military, intelligence
and diplomatic cooperation with the United States would result in complete break
in relations between the two countries. Considering Pakistan’s economic and
geo-strategic situation, this is a bold yet risky decision. Washington knows
that US needs Pakistan’s cooperation to shut down Taliban safe heavens and bring
militant leaders to the conference table. Washington, therefore, has adopted a
conciliatory posture towards Pakistan. President Obama, Secretary Hillary
Clinton and Defence Secretary Leon Penata have deeply regretted the NATO attack,
but Obama refused to apologize, but finally did so on 21 December. White House
Press Secretary Jay Carney called the Pakistan Army deaths a ‘tragedy’,
reiterating that ‘the two nations should work cooperatively on our shared
goals’. Washington’s soft pedalling is not enough to curtail Pakistani anger.
Any hard posture by Washington will be unwise and against US interests in the
region.”
New Delhi – Bracing for Summer of 2012
While India has welcomed the US decision to withhold or cut military aid to
Pakistan by a third, there is nothing for it to feel secure about. President
Obama’s belief that the Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan has been substantially weakened,
and as such, a major troop withdrawal can be done, is not shared by Gen David
Patraeus, former force commander in Afghanistan, now heading CIA and some
others. Exit of the bulk of US and other coalition forces from Afghanistan will
give terrorists of all hues far greater freedom of movement and action wherever
they want to go. Whenever that happens, India will have to be all the more
guarded not only in Jammu and Kashmir and the rest of the country, but also for
its reconstruction and assistance organisations in Afghanistan. New Delhi must
brace up for the summer of 2012.
|