By Zafar Hilaly
Her remark that it was "hard to believe" that no one in Pakistan's government had a clue where the Al Qaida leaders had been hiding since 2002 was well received outside government circles. The lack of knowledge we plead about the whereabouts of Al Qaeda operatives and, more so, the "friendly" Taliban does indeed stretch credulity. After all, Mullah Saifullah, Fazlullah's right-hand man, was in Barakau, only a stone's throw from the Presidency, when he was apprehended.
Hillary was right to refer to the "trust deficit" which exists between the two countries, and to apologise for the "mistakes" of the past, the need to put the mistakes behind us and to "turn over a new page." Indeed, that needs to be done quickly. Pakistan and America cannot afford to dwell on the past.
Hillary adroitly confronted the KLB critics. Her explanations that KLB was not meant to say, do or be, what is thought here and that in future greater care will be paid to Pakistan's sensitivities were welcome assurances. Of course, they did not satisfy all, given the popular prejudice against America that was never on the cards but, hopefully, it satisfied enough of those who matter to end further caterwauling over the KLB. Either we reject the KLB or lump it. The whingeing and the injured innocence are getting tiresome.
Hillary was also right when she said that in the US-Pakistan partnership "mutual respect and mutual shared responsibility was needed."
About the only issue on which Hillary would not be drawn out was that of the drones. And that, one suspects, was because she is aware that their use has been sanctioned expressly, or by a wink and a nod, from her hosts. Had Hillary confirmed such a suspicion it would have raised an outcry and marred her entire trip; she was wise to desist.
The aspect of Hillary Clinton's trip that was most disappointing was her inability to articulate anything by way of a US policy in Afghanistan, beyond that is, chasing the elusive Al Qaeda terrorists up and down the foothills of the Hindu Kush. Sorely missing in the mosaic of Obama's plans for Afghanistan is a vision for the future and of that there was not a whiff in Hillary's utterances. Strange too, because you cannot ignore the elephant in the room, was Hillary's indifference to Pakistan's concerns regarding India's increasing involvement in the Afghan imbroglio and specifically in the attacks against our armed forces.
It is now widely accepted that political stability is not possible in Afghanistan, and hence Pakistan, without the withdrawal of occupation forces. An indefinite American presence is viewed in the region, and the Muslim world, as a curse far greater than the presence of two or three dozen homicidal maniacs belonging to Al Qaeda in the Af-Pak badlands. It is similarly inconceivable that these harassed fugitives, who are constantly on the lam, should be the sole reason for the presence of 70,000 and growing number of American soldiers in Afghanistan. It defies common sense for America to earn the ill will, suspicion and distrust of hundreds of millions of Muslims, and the enduring hatred of the Pakhtuns, on a wager that the Taliban can be worsted in battle or their notions of life and religion be transformed by force; and that too under the stewardship of a corrupt puppet foisted on the Afghan nation through rigged polls and American bayonets. The Taliban function best when confronted by an enemy against which they can coalesce. Take away the enemy and the groups which form the bulk of the Taliban forces will turn on themselves and eventually dissolve.
The Afghan Taliban are no fools. They know how to defend themselves against a sustained assault on their culture traditions and their religion. Their forefathers have been doing so for centuries. The Taliban came to power in 1996 more out of guile and a better understanding of the social and political dynamics of the Pakhtun tribes than brute strength. They manipulated regional, ethnic and sectarian differences, including the schisms and groupings within the Afghan tribes, to such an extent that they hardly had to fight any battles.
Since then, the Taliban have been taught a salutary lesson. Actually, the Taliban were not beyond expelling Osama in 2001 and, had Bush and Osama not pulled the curtain down on the prospects of a peaceful settlement, may well have done so. There is, therefore, every chance that, offered a fair deal, conditional on an American/NATO withdrawal, the Taliban would be willing to negotiate.
As for India, a segment of that country has forever been rubbing their hands in glee at the prospects of Pakistan going under. The opportunities presented by the ongoing war to meddle and contribute their mite to Pakistan's problems are legion and inviting. The area and terrain, ranging from the unguarded border of Balochistan to the drug trails of the Afghan frontier, where allegedly Karzai's brother has his domain, is vast and porous. And apparently the self-righteous lot amongst Indians, when it comes to Pakistan, or the kind that burns innocent Indian Muslims alive only to reap the electoral dividend, are up to their necks in meddling and stoking the fires of revolt in Balochistan, if our interior minister is to be believed.
But even if we discount the minister's claims and take Dr Manmohan Singh at his word that he wishes Pakistan to prevail in the fight against terrorism there is nothing that Manmohan Singh has done that lends even a sliver of credence to his claim. The entire composite dialogue process remains hostage to the fate of one fanatic, whose destiny is of least concern to anyone except the trial judge, himself no more than a junior member of the judiciary. Similarly, for all that Hillary Clinton said, and repeated ad nauseam, about the need for India and Pakistan to forge better ties, it is difficult to recall a single initiative that would suggest that America is striving to prevail on India to be conciliatory in deeds and not merely words. It is the complete absence of public pressure on India by the US that gives rise to suspicions in Pakistan that America will passively accept, what India wants, namely, further destabilisation of Pakistan. The fact that such a perception may not be true matters less than that many here believe it. Sadly, Hillary did nothing to dispel it.
There will be many a sequel to Hillary's recent visit. On this trip she told her local audiences that it is a time to fight. On her next foray she may well be explaining why the time has come to talk. That will happen not because there has been any material change in the situation but because the loss of American lives and dollars and the increasing burden the war is placing on Pakistan's polity and resources have become unaffordable to both. Meanwhile, much time would have been lost and much life and treasure wasted.
The bare facts are that Afghanistan is in the grip of a civil war. Elements of Afghan society are pitted against each other. Americans, Pakistanis, al Qaeda et al have no place in their war. "Let the dust settle where it will in Afghanistan. We have no business to interfere," was the wise counsel of Benazir Bhutto as long ago as 1995; advice which our soldiers ignored at their own peril then and which the Americans seem no less heedful today.
The writer is a former ambassador. Email: charles123it@hotmail.com