The US government is concerned that an unfriendly country, Iran, is developing nuclear weapons. Tehran is billed as the biggest threat to Western interests in the region and, indeed, there is truth in that assessment. But in case the powers that be in Washington have not noticed, Pakistan already is a nuclear-armed country and, as in Iran, the majority of its people are angry at US interference and generally suspicious over Western designs—real or imagined. I say that because the US appears to be going out of its way to humiliate Islamabad seemingly without a care that doing so is likely to turn an ally into an enemy.
Did US Secretary of Defence Leon Panetta really have to rub salt in Pakistan’s wounds by gloating, in front of an appreciative Indian audience, over the fact that the Pakistani government was given no advance knowledge of the planned killing of Osama Bin Laden? “They didn’t know about our operation. That was the whole idea,” he told them with a chuckle.
The question is what is America’s endgame in so doing?
Pakistan was bludgeoned into becoming a US partner in the so-called “war on terror,” subsequent to threats from the George W. Bush administration that it would be returned “to the Stone Age,” a pill that was softened with billions of dollars in aid. General Pervez Musharraf chose to toe the line—a decision that was accepted, albeit reluctantly, by Pakistan’s elites, but was greeted with outrage by the country’s Pashtuns that share bloodlines and culture with Afghanistan’s Pashtuns that make up some 40 percent of the population. A situation akin to say China demanding the Celtic Welsh turn against the Celtic Scots was made worse by the Pashtun belt being used as launch pads to kill Al Qaida and the Taliban.
US-Pakistan relations were fraught from the word go and have gone downhill, mostly due to US insensitivity when dealing with a proud people along with its disregard for innocent Pakistani casualties, which the Americans write off as collateral damage. This gives the impression that sacrificing the lives of Pakistani people is an unfortunate by-product of the war. A few days ago, the UN Commissioner for Human Rights, Navi Pillay, called for a UN investigation into drone attacks—approved by US President Barack Obama and justified by Panetta as self-defence—as potential breaches of international law that violate human rights. “I see the indiscriminate killings and injuries of civilians in any circumstances as human rights violations,” she said.
If the US aim in that part of the world was to eradicate terrorists, it hasn’t worked. Its strikes are far from being surgical and each time there are victims of drone attacks, anti-Americanism ratchets-up and militant extremists are given fodder to attract new recruits. According to the UK-based Bureau of Investigative Journalism, up to 830 Pakistani civilians, including women and children, have had their lives cut short during US attempts to eradicate high-profile terrorist targets. Those victims will have left behind fathers, husbands, sons and cousins, many understandably keen to avenge their loss.
Former CIA counter-terrorism chief, Robert Grenier, told the ‘Guardian’ newspaper that the drone programme was too broadly targeted. He said: “The unintended consequences of our actions are going to outweigh the intended consequences.” That’s exactly my point! Is it arrogance that makes Obama and his advisers oblivious to the simple truth that treating human lives as disposable and stomping on the sovereign integrity of an ally is not the way to win friends or influence anyone?
Now it seems that Pakistan’s government has had enough of being demonised by both the Pakistani street and its fair-weather American friend. Subsequent to NATO’s attack on two military checkpoints that killed 24 Pakistani soldiers, the authorities closed supply routes to Afghanistan on which NATO relied. Eager to get them re-opened, Washington has been piling pressure, but will not acccede to demands made by Pakistan’s parliamentarians in April for a US apology as opposed to “condolences,” as well as a US commitment to cease drone attacks and the transportation of weapons across Pakistan’s soil.
You don’t have to be a whizz-kid political or military strategist to conclude that US policy is deeply flawed. As each day passes, nuclear-armed Pakistan and potentially nuclear-armed Iran are finding common cause. Indeed, to the severe displeasure of US Secretary of State, Hilary Clinton, Pakistan has sealed a deal with Iran for a $1.6 billion (Dh5.88 billion) pipeline for the import of natural gas from Iran’s South Pars field. After warning off India from participating in the pipeline project, Clinton is now threatening Pakistan with “damaging consequences.”
It’s not hard to imagine that Pakistan’s leadership, in the belief it is damned if it does and damned if it doesn’t in Washington’s eyes, might take its cooperation with Iran into different fields. If that happens, the days when any US government will be in a position to turn Pakistanis into the Flintstones will be gone, along with the region’s current balance of power, when the actions of a handful of “terrorists” will seem like nothing more than bites from a gnat in comparison.
Linda S. Heard is a British specialist writer on Middle East affairs. She welcomes feedback and can be contacted by email at heardonthegrapevines@yahoo.co.uk.
RSS
US policy in Pakistan counter-productive and dangerous
Posted on June 14, 2012 by Linda S. Heard
The US government is concerned that an unfriendly country, Iran, is developing nuclear weapons. Tehran is billed as the biggest threat to Western interests in the region and, indeed, there is truth in that assessment. But in case the powers that be in Washington have not noticed, Pakistan already is a nuclear-armed country and, as in Iran, the majority of its people are angry at US interference and generally suspicious over Western designs—real or imagined. I say that because the US appears to be going out of its way to humiliate Islamabad seemingly without a care that doing so is likely to turn an ally into an enemy.
Did US Secretary of Defence Leon Panetta really have to rub salt in Pakistan’s wounds by gloating, in front of an appreciative Indian audience, over the fact that the Pakistani government was given no advance knowledge of the planned killing of Osama Bin Laden? “They didn’t know about our operation. That was the whole idea,” he told them with a chuckle.
The question is what is America’s endgame in so doing?
Pakistan was bludgeoned into becoming a US partner in the so-called “war on terror,” subsequent to threats from the George W. Bush administration that it would be returned “to the Stone Age,” a pill that was softened with billions of dollars in aid. General Pervez Musharraf chose to toe the line—a decision that was accepted, albeit reluctantly, by Pakistan’s elites, but was greeted with outrage by the country’s Pashtuns that share bloodlines and culture with Afghanistan’s Pashtuns that make up some 40 percent of the population. A situation akin to say China demanding the Celtic Welsh turn against the Celtic Scots was made worse by the Pashtun belt being used as launch pads to kill Al Qaida and the Taliban.
US-Pakistan relations were fraught from the word go and have gone downhill, mostly due to US insensitivity when dealing with a proud people along with its disregard for innocent Pakistani casualties, which the Americans write off as collateral damage. This gives the impression that sacrificing the lives of Pakistani people is an unfortunate by-product of the war. A few days ago, the UN Commissioner for Human Rights, Navi Pillay, called for a UN investigation into drone attacks—approved by US President Barack Obama and justified by Panetta as self-defence—as potential breaches of international law that violate human rights. “I see the indiscriminate killings and injuries of civilians in any circumstances as human rights violations,” she said.
If the US aim in that part of the world was to eradicate terrorists, it hasn’t worked. Its strikes are far from being surgical and each time there are victims of drone attacks, anti-Americanism ratchets-up and militant extremists are given fodder to attract new recruits. According to the UK-based Bureau of Investigative Journalism, up to 830 Pakistani civilians, including women and children, have had their lives cut short during US attempts to eradicate high-profile terrorist targets. Those victims will have left behind fathers, husbands, sons and cousins, many understandably keen to avenge their loss.
Former CIA counter-terrorism chief, Robert Grenier, told the ‘Guardian’ newspaper that the drone programme was too broadly targeted. He said: “The unintended consequences of our actions are going to outweigh the intended consequences.” That’s exactly my point! Is it arrogance that makes Obama and his advisers oblivious to the simple truth that treating human lives as disposable and stomping on the sovereign integrity of an ally is not the way to win friends or influence anyone?
Now it seems that Pakistan’s government has had enough of being demonised by both the Pakistani street and its fair-weather American friend. Subsequent to NATO’s attack on two military checkpoints that killed 24 Pakistani soldiers, the authorities closed supply routes to Afghanistan on which NATO relied. Eager to get them re-opened, Washington has been piling pressure, but will not acccede to demands made by Pakistan’s parliamentarians in April for a US apology as opposed to “condolences,” as well as a US commitment to cease drone attacks and the transportation of weapons across Pakistan’s soil.
You don’t have to be a whizz-kid political or military strategist to conclude that US policy is deeply flawed. As each day passes, nuclear-armed Pakistan and potentially nuclear-armed Iran are finding common cause. Indeed, to the severe displeasure of US Secretary of State, Hilary Clinton, Pakistan has sealed a deal with Iran for a $1.6 billion (Dh5.88 billion) pipeline for the import of natural gas from Iran’s South Pars field. After warning off India from participating in the pipeline project, Clinton is now threatening Pakistan with “damaging consequences.”
It’s not hard to imagine that Pakistan’s leadership, in the belief it is damned if it does and damned if it doesn’t in Washington’s eyes, might take its cooperation with Iran into different fields. If that happens, the days when any US government will be in a position to turn Pakistanis into the Flintstones will be gone, along with the region’s current balance of power, when the actions of a handful of “terrorists” will seem like nothing more than bites from a gnat in comparison.
Linda S. Heard is a British specialist writer on Middle East affairs. She welcomes feedback and can be contacted by email at heardonthegrapevines@yahoo.co.uk.