On two foreign policy issues, though, both rivals are as united as Siamese twins. One of them is Israel, the other is Pakistan. About Israel, however, the policy is predictable, for, no president of the United States can dare to offend Israel. In fact, no candidate can expect to win in the U.S. presidential elections without the Israeli lobby’s support.
But the convergence of their policies on Pakistan is dictated by other factors, especially the “war on terror” and the security of Pakistan’s nuclear assets. Both are determined to wipe the Taliban and al Qaeda out and “prevent the nuclear arsenal falling the hands of people they don’t like,” – namely Islamic fundamentalists.
Historically, Republican presidents have been comfortable with military dictators in Pakistan. Examples are Yahya Khan - Nixon, Zia-ul-Haq - Reagan, and Musharraf - Bush. They are not quite happy with elected regimes in Pakistan of which Zulfikar Bhutto’s relations with the Nixon administration provide a glaring example. Even during Benazir Bhutto’s first stint as prime minister, when George H.W. Bush was president, there was no mentionable development in Pak-US relations.
Democrat presidents on the other hand are more at ease with elected governments in Pakistan than with dictators. J.F. Kennedy’s and Lyndon Johnson’s administrations did not respond to Pakistan’s hopes as expected, particularly in its 1965 war with India. This was in spite of Pakistan joining CENTO and SEATO and allowing US U-2 planes to operate from Pakistan territory (Badaber) to spy upon the Soviet Union, because Ayub Khan, a dictator, was in charge. Frustrated, Ayub Khan vented his feelings through his book, Friends, no Masters.
Similarly, Jimmy Carter received a rebuke from Zia-ul-Haq. The latter spurned his offer of aid as “peanuts.” But Pak-U.S. relations during the tenure of Benazir and Nawaz Sharif, which coincided with Bill Clinton’s presidency, were quite happy.
As the latest example when the elected president Zardari went on his first yatra to thank President Bush for everything and cry on his shoulder about the economic meltdown, he found the shoulder cold despite the warmest tributes he paid to his host as the man who had made the world safer.
Barack Obama’s statement of August 1, 2007 may be seen in this context. “There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al-Qaida leadership meeting in 2005. “If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will,” he said.
The statement stirred furore not only in Pakistan, which was understandable, but also in the Republican Camp, which was less comprehensible. In fact, Obama had given words to what the Bush administration had been doing covertly and surreptitiously to avoid embarrassing their ally, Pervez Musharraf. And he, later, explained it, be emphasizing the point relating to “actionable intelligence,” which is way different from the so-called “credible intelligence” that the CIA under the Bush has been using to bomb innocent people.
On the other hand, here is a gem from John McCain. “Prior to Musharraf, Pakistan was a failed state,” he was quoted as saying. “They had corrupt governments and they would rotate back and forth and there was corruption, and Musharraf basically restored order. So you’re going to hear a lot of criticism about Musharraf that he hasn’t done everything we wanted him to do, but he did agree to step down as head of the military and he did get the elections.”
But Musharraf is now out. So where does he go from here? It may be recalled that he supports the continuation of George Bush’s policies in foreign affairs, which are also the policies followed by Republican presidents from McKinley who started the Spanish-American War, to Nixon, Reagan and Bush, - bombing the enemy back to the Stone Age.
In fact, al Qaeda also feels happy with a Republican administration. In 2004, just before the elections an al Qaeda video had surfaced that swung the votes in Bush’s favour and cinched his second term. Now, once again, an al Qaeda web site has been discovered supporting McCain. Analysts attribute this new move to the fact that the indiscriminate bombing and other excesses committed under the warlike policies of the Republican administration have been very helpful for al Qaeda in providing a stream of fresh recruits.
With an Obama victory this source of fresh manpower supply could be neutralized and may eventually dry up for he is quite clear in his mind about the course he would wish to pusue. He knows Pakistanis better than McCain. His mother once worked for some NGO for several years in Pakistan. Obama visited Karachi in 1981 and made a few Pakistani friends. According to political analysts, his economic assistance would be people-oriented rather than military-oriented as under Republican governments.
Such a policy would be the most sensible ever to be pursued by any US government towards Pakistan. It is the economic deprivation and utter lack of basic amenities in the tribal area that make the people easy prey to the Taliban and al Qaeda sermons. The economic uplift would automatically neutralize the Taliban and al Qaeda influence over them.
Hpowever there is no question that both presedential candidates are committed to annihiate al-Qaeda and Taliban and equally share concern about Pakistan’s nuclear capability. So let’s keep the fingers crossed and wait for the results.
TrackBack URI for this entry
Subscribe to this comment's feed