Asia Times, WASHINGTON – At a recent hearing on the “Challenges of terrorism in Asia” on Capitol Hill, several Congressmen persistently raised questions about Pakistan and its commitment to fighting Islamic fundamentalism, curbing the resurgence of the Taliban and clamping down on the thousands of madrassas (religious schools) which continue to be incubators for militants.
But these concerned congressmen were stonewalled equally persistently by Bush administration officials who gave their assessment of the current situation. It was as if the two sides were talking about a different country, a different time and a different place. On every question about Pakistan's failure to honor its pledges to stop cross-border infiltration into India, or to arrest Taliban leaders moving about in the Pakistan-Afghanistan border areas, administration officials walked a fine line, declining to even admit the premise of the questions that terrorists were walking across from one country to the other. The long and tedious dance went on for nearly three hours, during which congressmen continued to throw punches and the witnesses continued to successfully duck them. Representing the Bush administration were Christina Rocca, Assistant Secretary of State for South Asia, and Cofer Black, the department's coordinator for counter-terrorism.
Efforts by Democrats to cajole the Bush administration to put conditions on US aid to Pakistan met with opposition, and suggestions for closer scrutiny were ignored. The message was clear: it is a Republican White House, a Republican House of Representatives and a Republican Senate. They don't need or want ideas from the opposition. Sources on Capitol Hill said that this White House brooks no dissent or discussion on foreign policy issues, and this hearing was no different. Since the Democrats don't have the legislative clout, all they can do is make some noise.
The Congressional hearing raised wider questions about where the “war on terrorism” is headed and how best to prosecute it. It also became clear that the State Department is not prepared to put any public pressure on Pakistan to adhere more assiduously to promises made by none other than President General Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan. Since Pakistan is a key ally in the “war on terrorism”, the Bush administration is keen not to embarrass the leadership and ruffle feathers. US officials claim that they are putting enormous pressure on Musharraf to do more and better to stop infiltration into Kashmir, but in private. But Democrats on Capitol Hill don't want US taxpayers' money flowing to Pakistan without public accountability and clear markers of progress on the ground. They would like conditions put on the US$3 billion aid package for Pakistan announced by President George W Bush in June. For the past six months, US media reports have consistently criticized Pakistan for failing to arrest Taliban leaders who live openly in Quetta.
But the State Department has strongly resisted any overt conditionality. During the Congressional hearing, Congressman Eni Faleomavaega, the ranking Democrat on the House sub-committee on Asia and the Pacific, once again tried to push, but failed to elicit a response. “I do not believe we should provide billions of dollars of aid to Pakistan with no strings attached,” he said. The three unwritten conditions that have been talked about are for Pakistan to stop proliferation of all nuclear technology and material, end cross-border terrorism into India and return the country to democracy. Of the three, the only condition Pakistan is close to obeying is the one on nuclear proliferation, because US officials have drawn a clear red line, according to analysts.
As for shutting down terrorist camps and preventing terrorists from crossing into India, it appears that Pakistan and the Bush administration have reached an accommodation – while the goal may be desirable, it is not attainable for now. The Bush administration appears willing to live with terrorism in Kashmir as a price for Pakistan's continued cooperation on hunting down al-Qaeda. Evidence of this can be seen in Deputy Secretary Richard Armitage's public climb down in holding Musharraf's feet to the fire on the question. In 2002, Armitage publicly announced that he was confident that infiltration into India would end following Musharraf's personal assurances to him. But a year later, both Armitage and Musharraf backed off from their clear public pronouncements.
Brad Sherman, a Democrat from California, said that it was not just a matter of porous borders. “There is significant evidence that the Pakistani intelligence service provides critical support to terrorists operating in both India and Kashmir. The US cannot solve the Kashmir problem, but it can do more to impress on our Pakistani friends that their opposition to terrorism must be universal and apply to its relationship with India, not just its relationship to the United States and its concerns in Afghanistan,” he said.
Musharraf asserted during a visit to Washington in June that he was doing the best he could, but if the Indian army couldn't plug its borders, he couldn't guarantee a sealed border. Armitage, a tough diplomat, seemed to accept the explanation during his trip to Islamabad in July this year, while admitting that terrorists were still coming across the Line of Control into India.
“India has not crossed the line of control since 1972. In fact, India has exercised incredible restraint in not waging full-scale war to defend itself against these terrorist acts,” noted Faleomavaega, who has tried to attach conditions to US aid, but so far his amendment has languished in legislative wilderness.
Rocca, the State Department's representative, defended Pakistan's efforts and cooperation in the “war on terror”. “We've seen the government of Pakistan take on efforts against these groups [operating in India]. I think it's harder – these groups may be harder to go after than al-Qaeda and the Taliban, because they have a fair amount of domestic support. But we've also seen them take action against them. We would like to see more.”
Independent South Asia analysts say that the US might be making a mistake by handling Pakistan with kid gloves. Unless there is some public pressure, Musharraf will not feel the heat and will not take the action necessary against jihadis operating in Kashmir. Walter Andersen, a former State Department official and now deputy director of the South Asia program at Johns Hopkins University, says that the message to Musharraf is too mild to be taken seriously. Musharraf knows the Americans will back him so long as he occasionally delivers al-Qaeda operatives. Andersen is particularly upset by the conclusions Pakistan's government may draw from this policy – terrorism against the US is bad, but against India, or lately against Afghanistan, is acceptable.
A senior Afghan diplomat said that Pakistan had crossed the Durand Line – the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan – recently and taken vantage positions deep inside Afghan territory. “We alerted the Americans immediately and they saw it with their own eyes. They have the record of the troop movement,” the diplomat said. The issue was also raised this summer in the trilateral commission – a group of officials from Afghanistan, Pakistan and the US crafted to discuss differences and common goals.
“We have asked the US to ensure that these incursions don't occur. We see a lack of sincerity on Pakistan's part,” the Afghan diplomat said in an interview. Other analysts say that Pakistan is playing too clever a game with these short-sighted tactical moves while radicalism breeds on its own territory. Manipulating militant elements to serve its purpose in India while hoping they won't gain political ground in Pakistan is a mirage. Musharraf has told US officials privately that he can't push religious parties too far because they will come back against him with more vigor.
But as Jim Leach, a Republican and chairman of the House sub-committee said in his opening statement: “As we think about what must surely be the long-term nature of the terrorist challenge in Asia and its implications for the United States, it's critically important that we strive to maintain the right balance of our policies. In this region and elsewhere, policymakers would be wise to remember Teddy Roosevelt's admonition that America should speak softly but carry a big stick.”
