Zardari’s US visit
by
Javed Hafiz |
What Obama considers ‘the right war’ is moving in the wrong direction
While I write this opinion piece, President Asif Ali Zardari is in the United States on an official visit. A trilateral summit between US President Barack Obama, Afghanistan’s President Hamid Karzai and Zardari added value to this trip. To say that war on terror has topped the agenda, is stating the obvious. The problem is that what Obama considers ‘the right war’ is moving in the wrong direction. “We are not winning the war in Afghanistan; but we have not lost it as yet”, said a US official recently. The US-led Nato forces want a quick fix in Afghanistan leading to an exit without humiliation. It is here where Pakistan’s role becomes crucial.
Barely a week before the visit, President Obama described the government in Islamabad as fragile and unable to deliver in areas like education, health and dispensation of justice. Since the statement was blunt and came on the eve of Zardari’s visit, it raised a storm in Pakistan. Prime Minister Yusuf Raza Gilani retorted that weakness of civilian institutions in Pakistan was due to US help to military dictators, General Pervez Musharraf, in particular. Sayed Munawar Hasan, the new Jamat Islami chief urged Zardari to cancel the visit if he had “an iota of national self respect.” Jamat thinks that Pakistan’s close ties with the United States are a “kiss of death”. This thinking, however, is simplistic.
US special envoy for Afghanistan and Pakistan, Richard Holbrooke, was quick to try some damage control by saying that the United States did not doubt the ability of Pakistan government to address various domestic challenges. Some observers believe that President Obama, by highlighting the fragility of the civilian government, was actually trying to push the Kerry-Lugar Bill through the US Congress. US media, meanwhile, has also roundly criticised the Zardari government’s performance. This concerted effort appears like mounting pressure on Zardari to make him accept various US demands.
In the same statement, President Obama paid glowing tributes to the Pakistani armed forces and expressed confidence in their ability to safeguard nuclear assets. Only a week earlier, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, had expressed concern over the safety of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons. Almost simultaneously, US General David Petraeus said that two weeks were critical for the government in Islamabad, in view of Taliban gains in Swat. I rate both these statements as highly exaggerated and motivated by the US policy to mount pressure on Pakistan. US statements on Pakistan have also been inconsistent.
President Obama praising the armed forces, and the Central Command chief putting the civilian government on two weeks’ notice, hinted at the possibility of a military take over. Despite denials from Washington, that was the assessment of some anaylsts here. Even though the United States may be more comfortable with “one window operation” in Pakistan, the possibility of military takeover appears remote. Pakistan’s Chief of Army staff, General Ashfaq Kayani, a soldiers’ soldier, has too much on his plate now. He would be the last person to think of ruling Pakistan, at this stage. This scenario is possible only if things get completely out of the civilian government’s hands.
In my assessment, the US leadership is seriously trying to promote the idea of a broad -based government in Pakistan that would also include Pakistan Muslim League (Nawaz). Such a government could provide an effective political umbrella needed by the armed forces, at this critical juncture and it would also be in a better position to hold a dialogue with Taliban, when required. However, PML (N) ‘s Nawaz Sharif does not want to become part of an unpopular government.
US thinks that both Zardari and Karzai are ineffective. Moreover, both are tainted by corruption charges and operate from respective bunker -like presidencies, for security reasons. “Guarding US interests might be easier if Obama had different partners for his bilateral summit. Yet, the reality is that the administration will probably have to depend on these two men in the foreseeable future”, wrote the Washington Post.
Afghan security forces are in a formative phase and limited in number. Many Nato nations, though militarily present in Afghanistan, do not want their soldiers on combat duties. With surge in US troops there would be more action on ground in coming months. This would send more Afghan Taliban into Pakistan. That makes the role of Pakistani forces crucial. No wonder, General Kayani reappears in the Time magazine list of 100 most influential persons in the world, this time a place higher than President Obama.
So far Zardari’s American visit has gone well. He has told US leadership that Pakistan is capable of fighting the terrorists. He has also been lobbying that nascent democracy in Pakistan needed to be nurtured. Emergency US military assistance to Pakistan may soon be on its way. US government has assured a broad -based bilateral engagement with Pakistan. US economic and military assistance to Pakistan will flow for years, albeit with conditions. Despite their mutual trust deficit, the two countries cannot ignore each other. Their co-operation is also essential for regional security.
(Javed Hafiz is Pakistan’s former ambassador to the Sultanate) |
Other comment for Javed Hafiz
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| NEWS UPDATES |
|
|
|
|
|
|
