Now that our media coverage has switched mainly to domestic concerns, it is easy to forget the fact that India and Pakistan are still on the brink of conflict.
As that article discusses, India is continuing to pressure Pakistan to clean house and get rid of terrorism. It is sad that a tragic catalyst was needed to bring the political community around to finally pressuring Pakistan, but, as I have said before, this just may be the perfect opportunity to take care of a serious problem of terrorism in Pakistan through peaceful means.
Some examples of Pakistan’s terrorist problem: For years, everyone has had a fairly well-founded belief that Osama bin Laden is hanging out in northern Pakistan; there are known terrorist training camps that anyone who can read wikipedia can learn about; and the group that carried out the Mumbai attacks was so politically powerful in Pakistan that it took several days for the weight of the entire international community to urge their arrest. Pakistan is at least turning a blind eye to the presence of terrorism, and at worst actually supporting it.
It doesn’t help, of course, that the Pakistani government–which we do not question because it is a “democracy”–might still be funding Lashkar-e-Taiba; at the very least, their reluctance to arrest it leaders–and the subsequent speed with which they were arrested–does not inspire confidence. Add that to the fact that a large portion of Pakistan is completely lawless and unsupervised (the tribal areas where Osama bin Laden is believed to be hiding) and Pakistan looks more and more like a place that needs some attention from the international community.
The world’s high beams have rounded the bend and are now pointed squarely at Pakistan. With enough political pressure after this tragic event, Pakistan should have no other choice than to stop turning a blind eye to terrorism. The U.S. should seize this opportunity to advance the goals of its “War on Terror” without any military action and before any conflict arises between Pakistan and its neighbor, India.
Of course, even diplomacy is difficult in this case. Pakistan is a “democracy,” and Bush refused to get involved because of the fragile nature of our relationship with Pervez Musharraf, who some viewed for a long time as the only thing keeping Pakistan from an Islamic theocracy. With Musharraf’s resignation and the subsequent election of Asif Ali Zardari (you will remember him as the widower of Benazir Bhutto, who was assassinated a year ago), it seems that Pakistan’s democracy has in fact solidified somewhat, and, in retrospect, Musharraf’s military dictatorship was probably not a good surface for us to have rested our weight on for so long (although this is still somewhat up in the air).
Even as we express outrage, there are important lessons to absorb for our own foreign policy. It is widely known that Lashkar-e-Taiba, the terrorist group behind the Mumbai attacks, received its inceptional funding from the CIA and the Pakistani ISI in order to help the fight against the Soviet Union in Pakistan. They join a club that includes one of our favorite people, Osama bin Ladin himself and his mujahadeen, as direct recipients of U.S. funding in that conflict.
This is not to say that interference in Afghanistan in the 1980s was wrong (I mean, who didn’t cheer for Charlie Wilson in last year’s movie?), but it clearly provides a lesson in how U.S. foreign policy actions can have long term impacts.
President-elect Obama and the international community should join with India to pressure Pakistan to clean house. With enough pressure and sustained global outrage from both governments and the public over the terror attacks in Mumbai, there is serious room for persuading Pakistan in the coming weeks and doing a lot to fight terrorism in the world.
Let’s just hope that pushing it off the news doesn’t close this opportunity.
Hi Chris,
It’s great that you’ve covered Pakistan on AID’s blog, a country not featured too often on these pages.
I am, however, in disagreement with your analysis, as it seems a bit simplistic and definitely biased against Pakistan. Deeper news analysis might change this situation, since India has agreed that it’s intelligence systems were flawed and not up to par as they knew they were under threat for long, but did nothing about this. They also agree that for such attacks to take place, Indian complicity was required, which has been proven.
We are quick to point fingers against the country and its leaders, not knowing the socio-political context the country finds itself in. Pakistan might be an “ally”, but none of the billions of dollars funneled into the country (as aid) have seen the light of day, or made their way to the masses. Perhaps the US authorities should be questioned on this? Meanwhile, the army has become the most powerful institution in the country, when it should have been helping Pakistan transition into a strong democracy – a promise Musharraf made to his people, unfaithfully, obviously.
Lastly, while we debate the politics and the semantics, let us not forget that some of these organizations deemed terrorists by the West, have historically/traditionally been at the forefront of providing crucial social services that governments have neglected to provide, ie health, education, water/sanitation. This news item should prove so: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7786495.stm
Zeeshan–
I appreciate your comment and have been thinking about it a lot.
I am sorry if I appear biased against Pakistan–I think the short nature of this blog and trying to get down to the point I wanted to make prevented me somewhat from displaying the ameliorating factors and other arguments that come into play that would have painted Pakistan in a more positive light. Instead, I focused only on the element of potential sponsorship of terrorism and suggested that the international community deal with the situation now rather than let it fester or provoke more threats of military conflict in the future.
I think we are on somewhat of the same page with understanding that there are problems both with the Pakistani government and the way that the U.S. has traditionally reacted to it. As you say, there is not a lot of absorptive capacity for aid in Pakistan, and the buildup of the military has distracted and even directly opposed the establishment of democracy.
I am just proposing that this deficiency in the government has extended to the realm of potentially sponsoring terrorism. I don’t think this is too far off base–President-elect Obama himself has been recognizing this conjecture for quite some time (although we have to take into account political realities of seeming weak on foreign policy, Obama never really fully backed away from any of these comments:)
http://blogs.reuters.com/pakistan/2008/09/06/obama-says-pakistan-used-us-aid-to-prepare-for-war-against-india/
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Story?id=3434573&page=1
When a President who wants to avoid conflict is talking about the potential need for conflict in Pakistan, somebody needs to start finding ways to avoid this conflict.
If the international community takes advantage of the political environment to pressure Pakistan on this point, at least pressuring them to be more open about the situation, tensions will have a chance to die down.
—
Also, as to the ambiguities of terrorist organizations, I have no way of knowing what the dynamic of the group involved is. At the same time, plenty of groups throughout history have engaged in social projects while at the same time also engaging in military action. I think that these things are not mutually exclusive, although the point of the people they are helping being Hindu does make it questionable to what degree they could possibly be too extreme. This article was a very interesting read, but I’m not sure that this is a justification for not banning the group IF there is some solid evidence of their involvement in the plot (as India suggests, they were actually the ones who executed it).
Anyway, I hope you get a chance to respond to these points, as I really appreciate the constructive dialogue.
Hi Chris,
No apologies needed!
My only concern was that continuing to criticize a country that is resource-strapped and politically challenged will find no solutions that you and I as globally-conscious and optimistic youth yearn for. Instead, it fuels the fire that an irresponsible media flame day in, day out.
I think we’re in complete agreement about the overall negative situation and that something urgent needs to be done to curb the rise in terrorism, as well as the patronage of it – both in Pakistan – and elsewhere (India?).
Lastly, I cant underscore enough the need for a sense of justice to come with any overtures made towards peace. No comprehensive and long-lasting solution can be envisioned without this crucial ingredient. Let’s hope our leaders solve problems – justly.