E-MAIL THIS LINK
To: 

How much more can Pakistan do?
By Eric S. Margolis

AS far as the Bush administration is concerned, Pakistan may be a “key strategic ally”, but it is also a hotbed of Islamic militancy, an enemy of Israel, and a nation that barely disguises its hostility to the US.

Even worse, Pakistan just never seems to “get with the programme,” as they say in Washington. This unflattering viewpoint was underlined for all to see during US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s recent visit to Pakistan.

Secretary Rice reportedly demanded President Pervez Musharraf inflict more punishment on the tribes of North Waziristan and clamp down on Taliban supporters in Balochistan. She demanded Pakistan intensify efforts to root out Al Qaeda supporters and curb its Islamic parties.

One really wonders how much more Pakistan is expected to give. Since coming to power, President Musharraf has been forced by Washington to first abandon, then declare war on its creation, the Taliban, and give up Pakistan’s historic strategic interests in Afghanistan. Then, Musharraf was forced to purge Pakistan’s ablest generals, who had put him into power. They were replaced by officers approved by Washington.

ISI was transformed from one of the world’s finest intelligence agencies into a compliant servant of the government that, like CIA, abandoned its professionalism and duty to the nation by allowing itself to become politicised.

The struggle for freedom in Kashmir was abandoned and reclassified as “Islamic terrorism”, handing a huge victory to the Indians, who gleefully crowed they were getting revenge for Kargil. To the outside world, Pakistan seemed to admit it had indeed been a hotbed and sponsor of terrorism.

There are persistent reports that Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal, its key to survival against mighty India, has been put under some degree of US “supervision”. Just how much remains uncertain.

Britain’s nuclear weapons cannot be used without US approval. Have Pakistan’s nuclear weapons been similarly put under joint control? We don’t know, but we do know that the Bush administration wants to deprive Pakistan of its nuclear weapons. In fact, Bush even told Britain’s Tony Blair in 2003 that once he finished off Iraq he would “go on” to deal with Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.

On top of all this, Islamabad has been forced to wage war against its own people as part of the so-called war on terrorism. Washington’s insistence that Pakistan break its traditional autonomy agreement with the tribes of the NWFP destabilises Pakistan and undermines its national integrity.

Each step along this painful route of submission has increasingly angered and dismayed Pakistanis. President Musharraf has bent over so far backwards that his head is almost touching the ground.

It’s hard to think what more he can do to meet Washington’s never-ending demands. As Foreign Minister Khurshid Kasuri pointedly observed, the government now has 90,000 troops in Waziristan battling its own tribesmen.

Pakistan’s reward for obeying Washington’s requests is three billion to four billion dollars. But this amount is not enough to make up for forcing Pakistan to repeatedly violate its own national self-interest. If Pakistan is truly America’s “most important ally in the war on terrorism”, as Washington claims, then the price for this cooperation should be much higher.

The US is spending $6.1 billion a week alone in Iraq, and another $1.5 billion to $2 billion weekly in Afghanistan. To quote the late President Ziaul Haq, three to four billion dollars per annum is “peanuts.”

Even hints from Washington that it may finally supply modern F-16 models hardly compensates for what Pakistan has been through. Nor does it seriously alter the dangerous military imbalance between Pakistan and India. The US just announced it will provide $2 billion of arms and trucks to its Afghan sepoys. Surely, Pakistan deserves better? Perhaps it’s time for President Musharraf to start demanding a change.
Posted by: john 2006-07-06
http://www.rantburg.com/poparticle.php?ID=158432