Washington’s tough talk

By Amir Zia
The News -- Wednesday, May 12, 2010

The US frustration over Pakistan’s inability to curb militant activities on its soil and counter the scourge of extremist mindset has spilled again in public. This time, the tough-talk came from none other than US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton who, in an interview with CBS, said that Washington warned Islamabad of "severe consequences" if a successful extremist attack in the United States was traced back to Pakistan. In the interview, Clinton’s praise for Pakistan’s recent role in the war on terrorism comes as an after-thought and a balancing act with an uneasy ally, which appears dragging feet on many issues seen crucial by Washington and its western partners in the fight against Al Qaeda and other militant groups inspired by it.

Although Clinton refrained from explaining what the United States meant by those "severe consequences", the tough overtones of her message to Pakistan’s civil and military leadership came through loud and clear, underlining both the complexity and fragility of relationship between the two countries.

The Obama administration, which so far proved more considerate than its predecessor regarding Islamabad’s difficulties in tackling the problem of terrorism and extremism, slightly deviated from its approach by giving a tough public message. While many Pakistani politicians, analysts and commentators are likely to see Clinton’s statement as yet another opportunity to fan anti-US hysteria in the country and discuss myriad conspiracy theories, there has been hardly any serious soul-searching regarding the fact that why most global and regional acts of terror have their tentacles in Pakistan. Why does Pakistan attract fanatics and extremists of all shades and colours from across the globe? Why does it remain a fertile breeding ground for the local militant and extremist groups?

Faisal Shahzad, belonging to an educated and affluent family, is the latest, but definitely not the last, addition to the long and expanding list of Pakistani extremists -- going international. And even before the US secretary of state appeared on CBS, many Pakistani political pundits started calling this arrest as yet another "American conspiracy" against the Islamic Republic. The fact that this educated gentleman tried to explode a bomb in the heart of New York was conveniently forgotten and so was the information that he was trained to do so in the lawless tribal region of Pakistan.

Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi seemed to brush aside the attempted terror assault by saying that it was a reaction to drone attacks on Al Qaeda and Taliban militants in the tribal region – a fait accompli. His statement seems to provide justification more on behalf of the Taliban’s actions rather than express Pakistan’s determination to tackle the problem. A couple of days later Qureshi seems to calm his agitated nerves by saying that Faisal is not a Pakistani national, but a naturalised American citizen. As if this fact would help end Pakistan’s responsibility. Pakistan’s powerful military establishment, despite being on the forefront in the war on terrorism, in its initial reaction appeared in self-denial regarding Faisal’s suspected links with the Pakistani terror network. Inter-Services Public Relations’ Director General Major-General Athar Abbas said that it was premature to say that Faisal, son of a retired high-ranking air force official, had any connection with extremists operating in Pakistan.

This casual approach and off-the-cuff statements of civil and military officials are not going to help Pakistan ward off the tremendous pressure by the world and regional powers, which are singling it out for being the hub of terrorist and extremist forces. The world justifiably wants Pakistan to establish the writ of state on its territory. That means putting an end to the private militias, self-styled religious militant groups, their ideological mentors, financiers and abettors. Certainly, the task is easier said than done if one keeps in mind the past role of the state and its western allies, who helped create these very monsters they are being forced to fight now.

The Pakistani state failed to establish its writ on vast stretches of its territory, allowing them to stay lawless, ungoverned and backward. The task of establishing the writ became more complex and difficult due to the fact that religious extremism and fanaticism have countless facets and shades both in the mainstream urban centres as well as rural areas. Small and seemingly innocent ideological, political and financial contributions even by lawful and legal institutions and organisations often contribute in promoting radicalism and militancy in society. And the irony remains that the state institutions themselves played a major role in promoting these groups, which hound them now and refuse to unravel.

The situation is aggravated by the fact that the civil and military leadership failed to see and tackle the issue in its totality. Pakistan’s approach since the Musharraf era has been fire-fighting and managing those broken arrows that failed to follow dictates of the state under the changed post-9/11 circumstances. The thrust of this approach has been more on fighting the symptoms rather than changing the direction of state policy and taking long-term measures for the eradication of religious extremism in all its forms and manifestations.

Even now, Pakistan seems to act under pressure against extremist individuals and groups, but leaving enough space where they can regroup, breathe, rest, revitalise and attack. Pakistan’s lack of will or inability to act in a decisive manner against the terror network and its support structure is bringing more pressure on Islamabad. The message as stated by US Attorney General Eric Holder following the failed New York terror attack remains loud and clear -- either Islamabad acts against these forces or let the other do this task.

But Washington’s tough public talk makes the Pakistan government’s job more difficult. It gives firepower to the opposition and rightwing groups to confuse and scuttle the real issues of extremism and terrorism in the anti-US rhetoric. Yes, public warnings only strengthen the reactionary and extremist forces. The US should be seen as helping Pakistan in coming out of the vortex of terrorism rather than giving an impression that it is being bullied by the superpower. Just as in the case with India, militants will go to any extent to put strains in the Pakistan-US relations if they could with a terror strike, which remains a possibility.

Knee-jerk reactions and public warnings would certainly be counterproductive. On its part, Pakistan in its own enlightened self-interest should take the ownership of the war against extremism and terrorism, which is hurting the country more than any other nation. Along with surgical military operations, there is a need to counter militants and their allies on ideological and political grounds – a front which so far has been ignored.

Pakistani leaders should also ponder as to what the United States means by "severe consequences". As the tidings are, pressure on Islamabad is all set to increase. Will civil and military leaders be able to use this pressure to the country’s advantage? Pakistan needs a proactive approach rather than a reactionary one when it comes to combating terrorism. And most important, Islamabad has to come out straight regarding its efforts and sacrifices and match its words with action.