A precipice called Pak

After the killing of Osama bin Laden by the US Special Forces practically under the nose of Pakistan’s all-powerful Army and its premier spy agency, the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), the excruciating scene in Pakistan has become more confused, complex and challenging, not less. Moreover, the problem is by no means confined to Pakistan and Afghanistan

or AfPak, as the Americans have nicknamed the duo. All other major stakeholders in the region — besides the United States that is fighting a war in Afghanistan, now in its eighth year, and whose relations with its “key ally”, Pakistan, have sunk very low — are understandably concerned.
Instead of facing squarely the grim realities of the near-lethal fallout of the landmark event, the military-dominated Pakistani ruling establishment has reverted to its usual denial and defiant mode. Army Chief Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani as well as leaders of the civilian government swear that they were completely unaware of Bin Laden’s presence for nearly six years in one of their most important cantonments. The country’s Prime Minister, Yusuf Raza Gilani, blandly declared that the failure to detect Bin Laden’s whereabouts was “global”. Still, there was trauma among the Pakistani people and much criticism by thinking Pakistanis of the Army — for its pretence of ignorance of Al Qaeda founder’s presence close to the Pakistan Military Academy and for its possible complicity in the US operation. To overcome this the Army leadership had to present itself in Parliament for questioning, something that had not happened since the liberation of Bangladesh in 1971. However, the civilian government and the majority behind it jumped to the defence of the Army and the ISI and turned their anger against the Americans for “violating Pakistan’s sovereignty”. The parliamentary resolution demanded an assurance from the US that this would not be repeated ever again, and backed Gen. Kayani’s call for a “review and re-visit” of the entire US-Pakistan relationship.
To say this is not to overlook the fact that the leader of the Opposition and former Prime Minister, Nawaz Sharif, was sharply critical of the Army. At one stage he pleaded for “civilian control” over the Army budget so vehemently that ISI chief Lt. Gen. Ahmad Shuja Pasha told him: “Please, don’t treat us as an enemy”. Probably, this explains why retired Lt. Gen. Talat Masood, in an article in the New York Times, has warned: “If the Army is pushed too far, it would hit back hard”.
Gen. Kayani may not find it necessary to stage a coup, but in the current context he was happy to flash the China card at the Americans while Mr Gilani left for Beijing on a pre-scheduled and much-hyped visit. The Chinese were lavish in their praise for Pakistan — including for its “sacrifices” in the war on terror — and promised to expedite the supply of 50 J-17 fighter jets to it. They also stressed the need for “respecting Pakistan’s sovereignty” without saying a word about the US operation or Bin Laden’s elimination. But on the issues that matter they offered their “all-weather friends” little comfort. They declared that they had no intention to make capital out of America’s “misgivings” about Pakistan, and indeed counselled continuation of US-Pakistan cooperation in counterterrorism. They went so far as to say that China could be a bridge between the two, so that China, Pakistan and the US could jointly combat terrorism, including that by the Uighurs “on both sides of the Pakistan-Xingjiang border”. The official spokesperson of the Chinese foreign office lost little time in dismissing reports that China would establish a naval base at the Chinese-built Pakistani port of Gwadar, close to the strategic Gulf of Hormuz. Above all, despite its super-abundant riches, China didn’t promise Pakistan a single penny as economic aid. That is where a succession of high-level, high-profile American visits to Pakistan — of which the most important was the “surprise” visit of US secretary of state Hillary Clinton accompanied by the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen — comes in.
In their separate briefings to the media after her extensive talks with Pakistan’s civilian and military leaders, both Ms Clinton and the Pakistan foreign office spokesman took parallel but not identical lines. Behind the smoke screen of rhetoric about “common interests and mutual respect”, the two sides admitted that their relationship was in something of a crisis. Ms Clinton spoke of a “turning point” in it. The Pakistani spokesman said that the relationship with the US had entered a “new defining phase” that called for “course correction”. The American dignitary, while declaring that no top leader of Pakistan knew of Bin Laden’s presence at Abbottabad, stated that Pakistan needed to “do more” to kill or arrest leaders of Al Qaeda and its associates in Pakistan. She recommended “joint action” for this purpose. The Pakistani side harped on the demand for “no repetition” of Abbottabad-type action and cessation of drone attacks within Pakistan.
As of now America seems disinclined to accept either of these two demands. However, the bottom line is that, however strained, the US-Pakistan relationship will not reach breaking point. For the US, the route through Pakistan for supplies to its and Nato troops in Afghanistan remains critically important. Pakistan, with its bankrupt economy, simply cannot exist without America’s colossal military and economic aid that several US senators are threatening to curtail or terminate.
In relation to India, Pakistan remains as inimical and obdurate as ever. As they promised, the jihadis are indulging in almost daily orgy of terrorist attacks on Pakistani military targets to avenge Bin Laden’s “martyrdom”. Yet Pakistanis go on blaming India for the horrendous attack on the Mehran naval base in Karachi on the specious plea that the destruction of India-specific P3 Orion marine reconnaissance aircraft “benefited only India”. They are also brazen about the damning revelations in the ongoing Chicago trial.
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has therefore done well to tell Pakistan that its use of terrorism as an instrument of state policy is unacceptable not only to India but also to the entire civilised world. The question is whether Pakistan would respond positively even as the India-Pakistan dialogue goes on.