With Pakistan ripe for the picking, India has seized the day. It summoned 120 of its ambassadors to Delhi for a conference to agree on talking points. There's no lack of clarity in Delhi. From Sri Pranab Mukherjee on down, the Indian diplomatic offensive is sharp, compelling and consistent.
Here in Pakistan, things are a little different. For every Mukherjee Scud, there are a dozen Pakistani duds. Some fault Pakistani capacity. That's unfair to the hundreds of very bright Foreign Office wallahs. Pakistani diplomats represent Pakistan. That sums up the nature of their professional challenge. It is a tough, tough job being a Pakistani diplomat. Message clarity and consistency is of utmost importance in diplomacy. When dozens of ambassadors, secretaries and ministers are speaking at once about the same issue, they had better be singing from the same sheet. The truth is Pakistan suffers from a lack of message clarity and consistency, because Pakistani policy itself has been unclear and inconsistent.
Unfortunately, those that are trying to bridge the consistency divide are most at risk of seeming inconsistent. One example of the dissonance is that of the Pakistani ambassador to the United States, Husain Haqqani. Even Haqqani's supreme intellect, and his inspired charm can't conceal the very large disconnect between his work as a post 9/11 Pakistan and terrorism guru in Washington DC, and his current role as ambassador of Pakistan to the US.
For the most part, for anyone trying to understand Pakistan Haqqani's analysis is a useful read. With his encyclopaedic knowledge and photographic memory, Haqqani is a think-tank all unto himself. However, the standards by which we judge think tank analysts have to be fundamentally different from those that we use to judge diplomats. Think tanks, by very definition are spaces meant to open up the scope of discussion about a particular public issue. An embassy however is not a public square, a university or a think tank. It is the first and last mechanism of national security and international stability in an increasingly volatile world in which conventional war is an ever shrinking option (even for powerhouse militaries like India's). There's very little room to be caught flat-footed.
This is why while honest Pakistanis should have no trouble with the core of Haqqani's arguments as a scholar, they should be concerned that his scholarship is the basis for calls within the conservative establishment in the US for a hard-line approach to Pakistan (see Nina Shae's article in the National Review and The Weekly Standard's Bill Kristol and his recent column in the New York Times).
As the crown jewel in Pakistan's foreign policy apparatus, Haqqani's represents a uniquely cogent and powerful voice. That is why it is Haqqani's name, rather than any number of the abundance of lesser lights within the PPP government, that is most often cited. With the incoming Obama administration, Pakistan's foreign policy apparatus should brace itself for an army of well-prepared State Department officials, lead by the formidable and dazzling Hillary Clinton. Obama's people aren't neo-con cowboys, they're pragmatic academics. Unlike the Republican Bushies, Obama Dems tend to read. And when it comes to Pakistan and terrorism, there's a lot of reading material. Here's the kind of conversation with Secretary of State in-waiting Hillary Clinton, that Ambassador Haqqani might be facing come Jan 20:
Clinton: Husain, we love what you and President Zardari are trying to do, but you guys need to clean up. I need you guys to nail these terrorists – they went way over the line with Mumbai. I am literally holding back Sri Pranab and Manmohan Ji with all my might.
Haqqani: Madam Secretary, as I said to the New York Times on Nov 27, 2008: "It is unfair to blame Pakistan or Pakistanis for these acts of terrorism even before an investigation is undertaken".
Clinton: But Husain, on October 10, 2007 (not that long ago), you testified to the American people, through the US House of Representatives Armed Services Committee. In it you said that, "Pakistan continues to be a major centre for Islamist militancy… Radical Islamists who came from all over the world to fight against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan went on to become allies of Pakistan's military intelligence apparatus, which used them to fight Indian control over the disputed Himalayan territory of Kashmir as well as to expand Pakistan's influence in Afghanistan." So it seems that it may indeed be fair to blame Pakistan, no?
Haqqani: Madame Secretary, as I said to your friend George Stephanopolous on November 30, 2008, "The important thing is, everybody in the world is now coming round to agreeing that the government of Pakistan, the state of Pakistan, the military of Pakistan and even the intelligence services are not directly involved. That's the good news."
Clinton: George used to be a friend, but that's off-topic. I remember right after the Daniel Pearl kidnapping, you wrote a marvellous op-ed in the New York Times. It was like an early Valentine's Day gift for General Musharraf, published on Feb 13, 2002, and titled "Trying to Create a New Pakistan". In it you said, that "For now, Pakistan's leaders need to acknowledge that, in the strategic struggle with India, Pakistan nurtured the formation of terrorist cells that are capable of acts like kidnapping Mr. Pearl. If Pakistan is to make a clean break with such policies, it will have to begin cooperating with India by exchanging intelligence and agreeing to extradite wanted terrorists."
Haqqani: Madame Secretary, I have been telling you and everyone else in Washington DC that the US needed to ditch the dictator Musharraf, but you and your government took too long to take action.
Clinton: Well, Musharraf's been gone for four or five months now. Has your government begun to exchange intelligence with India? Has it handed over wanted terrorists? After all this is your advice to your country. Now you have a chance to carry out that advice.
Haqqani: As I said to Wolf Blitzer on CNN's Late Edition, on Nov 30, 2008, "Pakistan has made it very clear this time around Pakistan is not going to give any quarter to any terrorist groups and we want to work with India. We will cooperate in the investigation and we'll make sure we get these guys if they have any connection to us."
Clinton: It's interesting that you mention the interview with Wolf. You see in all your written work you clearly stipulate that the Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) is a product of the ISI. But when Wolf Blitzer, asked you if LeT was created by Pakistani intelligence, you said "Well, there's no way for me to know who created it."
Haqqani: Madame Secretary there isn't.
Clinton: Yes but in the Current Trends in Islamist Ideology (Volume 1, April 2005) paper you write that the LeT was, "founded in 1989 by Hafiz Muhammad Saeed (and) backed by Saudi money and protected by Pakistani intelligence services." Then in Volume 3 (Feb 2006) you write that, "Lashkar-e-Taiba is closely linked to the Saudi religious establishment, as well as to Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence". Again in Volume 4 (Nov 2006) you write that, "the Pakistani military and the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) supported militant Sunni Islamist groups in the northwest frontier bordering Afghanistan, as well as in Punjab and Baluchistan." And then, in your book, you write that the ISI directly pays the head of the LeT (on page 306), and that the "ISI was not too keen to offend its jihadi partners" by shutting them down (on page 303). Sounds like you do have a way of knowing who created the LeT.
Haqqani: Well, the LeT-ISI link is no more. As I keep saying, Pakistan's government, its people, its military and its intelligence agencies are all clean. We have nothing to do with these non-state actors.
Clinton: Sounds great Husain. I wish I could believe you. You see it simply boggles the mind that within a year since when you testified to the House Armed Services Committee, that Pakistan has changed dramatically. What should I tell President Obama? What has changed that has suddenly cleaned up Pakistan?
Haqqani: I am so glad you asked Madame Secretary. It is democracy. As we keep saying, democracy is the best revenge. My government has come in and cleaned up the military, the intelligence services, the madressahs, the bureaucracy, the schools, the hospitals and the economy. But if you want us to continue to do this fabulous job, we still need that $10 billion that I keep asking for.
Clinton: Husain, maybe you forgot who you're dealing with. I'm Hillary Clinton. I don't scare easy. You will continue to do "this fabulous job" because you have to, because I said so. And oh, by the way, my country is almost as bankrupt as yours is. If you want money you'll have to ask an emerging superpower, rather than a fading one. Maybe you should call Ratan Tata.
