John Kerry has tried to smooth relations with the government of Pakistan but he remains at odds with the Pakistani people because of the language he uses. “Existential threat”, “Al-Qaeda HQ in Pakistan” “Do more”, “Nukes safe?” and “Safe havens in Pakistan” are anathema to Pakistan and Pakistanis.
All these incorrect clichés need to be purged from the American vocabulary. “Existential threat” is taken as a veiled threat and is not acceptable to any sovereign nation—specially a nuclear powered one.
- “Al-Quaida” (if it still exists) is not headquartered in Pakistan—Islamabad purged the ranks and 300 of the top leadership is in Guantanamo. No organization under the name Al-Qaeda is allowed in Pakistan. The leaders are on the run and hide in nooks, crannies and caves in many parts of the world, including, Germany, Afghanistan, Somalia, Sudan, Yemen and Saudi Arabia etc.
- Nothing rankles the feathers of Pakistan than the mention of the security of Pakistani nukes—and the total silence on the safety of Israeli and Indian nuclear weapons. Hamas and Hizbullah are a few miles from Israeli nukes. 40% of India is controlled by the Maoist Naxals. However no US leader mentions the security of Indian weapons. A plane load of US nukes was mistakenly sent to Taiwan—and broken arrows (lost nukes) wasn’t discovered for days. Pakistanis are appalled that the US has the gall to question the safety of Pakistani pride and honor.
- Pakistani areas may be “hideouts” but are not “safe havens” for any terrorist. The semantic difference may be a fine line, but “safe haven” show malfeasance and toleration for terrorists by Pakistan and “hideouts” show that the terrorists are being chased and are hiding.
When US politicians talk about duplicity, they forget the duplicity of America when it imposed a non-Pakhtun and Anti-representative government in Kabul. Whenever an American politicians uses the three clichés, the good message is lost. Whatever else the politician says is then thrown into the “Anti-Pakistan” waste paper basket.
WASHINGTON: The United States has enormous stakes in Pakistan’s stability and must assist the country economically and militarily to help it overcome serious challenges, and at the same time make it clear to the Pakistanis that Washington respects their sovereignty, Senator John Kerry advocated.
‘We need to make it clear that we respect their (Pakistanis) sovereignty,’ he stated at the Council on Foreign Relations while speaking about US policy toward the region in the light of his visit to Pakistan and Afghanistan last week.
Kerry, co-author of a $7.5 billion five-year economic aid measure and chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, said Pakistan should be given vital breathing space to deal with its difficult problems. ‘These are serious challenges,’ he added.
The Democratic lawmaker appeared to favor a narrowly focused strategy for Afghanistan and warned against destabilising effect of any larger Afghan strategy on nuclear-armed Pakistan, which he praised for its massive ongoing anti-militant campaign in South Waziristan.
Arguing for sustained support for Pakistan, Senator Kerry also drew attention to the contrast in $30 to $1 ratio of what the US spends in Afghanistan and what it gives to Pakistan.
Senator Kerry ruled out any American combat troops on Pakistani soil, asserting that Islamabad can best overcome militant challenges through a homegrown approach.
‘We’re not going to send troops by any significant numbers of any kind to Pakistan. We may have some people training or helping if that’s something they (Pakistanis) decide they want,’ he said.
Kerry said the Obama administration is working to strengthen Islamabad’s ability to deliver on economic and security challenges.
‘The outcome is going to be determined by the Pakistanis themselves making a choice about whether or not they are going to stand up to the Taliban and assert their democratic values. I believe they will. I think they are,’ said Kerry in an interview with the Fox News channel.
‘And I think the White House is trying to figure out the best ways in which to empower them to do that. It can’t be an American-driven policy. It can’t have an American imprint or footprint. This really has to be homegrown, and that’s what we’re really working with the Pakistanis to achieve.’
‘If they (Pakistanis) are left in a place where their efforts are viewed as being our efforts, we’re all in trouble. We can’t tell them what to do. We can’t be viewed as orchestrating this in some way. This really has to be a plan that is based on our ability to assist them to do what they decide they want to do and need to do. And, yes, we have mutual interests.’
‘This is a country with a history and with an ability to be able to deliver – in some cases more rapidly than others. They now need to get coordinated. They have a new civilian government. They have had a military leader for the last eight years or so. They went to the polls. They elected this leader. He’s only had a short period of time under very difficult economic circumstances to really get things moving. Our hope is that they are now getting on the track and beginning to make the commitments necessary to win back their own country.’
He particularly highlighted the anti-militant resolve achieved at public level under the democratic Pakistani government.
‘The good news is that many Pakistanis recognize that they face an existential challenge within their border. The Pakistani military has demonstrated a firm resolve with its current offensive against Pakistani Taliban in Waziristan (border tribal area) and they deserve great credit for that.’
He also noted the Pakistani military is pushing back militants from the country’s northwestern areas they had infiltrated into.
‘We need to be doing as much as we can do and that involves Afghanistan and Pakistan in order to assist the Pakistani military as they go after domestic extremists,’ he added, underscoring the need for coordinated efforts against remnants of al-Qaeda.
‘We need to be doing a better job of explaining ourselves, we need to be much more sensitive to their sensibilities as to how we can proceed.’
He saw an opportunity in the current refugee exodus from Waziristan toward improving the image of the United States through humanitarian assistance.—APP
No comments:
Post a Comment