Study history, study history. In history lie all the secrets
of statecraft…” so said Winston Churchill. Around 45 years ago, as the
Pakistani Army waged war against its own people in East Pakistan, Indira Gandhi
made a prophetic observation in a TV interview weeks before the 1971 war. She
said, “I think, and I personally think most of the world believes this but they
may not say so openly, that Pakistan as it existed can never be the same
again.”
History is witness, since, to the unravelling of a
country—the decoupling of the nation and the emergence of the rogue state. For
four decades, Pakistan has leveraged sponsorship of terror as an instrument of
statecraft, creating multiple business models. That Pakistan continues to do so
while being a member of the UN and a trusted ally of the evangelists of global
morality illustrates the perfidy that defines geopolitics., America
There has been hopeful excitement about a bill (HR 6069)
titled “Pakistan State Sponsor of Terrorism Designation Act” introduced in the
US House of Representatives by Congressman Ted Poe. He said, “A day of
reckoning has arrived. Fifteen years after September 11, 2001, we have more
than enough evidence to determine whose side Pakistan is on. And it’s not
America’s.” This is not the first attempt. On March 9, 1995, Congressman Eliot
L Engel along with Representative Bill McCollum supported by seven members introduced
a resolution (H Con. Res 35) calling upon the Secretary of State “to designate
Pakistan as a state sponsor of terrorism”.
The 1995 resolution was referred to the Committee on International
Relations. The 2016 bill has been referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs
and Committee.
The reality of Pakistan sponsoring terror and providing a
safe haven for terrorists has been known and repeatedly proven—Abbottabad is
but one location. The fate of India’s repeated presentation of dossiers is well
known. Others haven’t fared better either. Rahmatullah Nabil, former head of
Afghan spy agency National Directorate of Security, accused Pakistan and ISI of
systematically sponsoring terrorism with grim details. Zalmay Khalilzad, former
US envoy to Iraq, Afghanistan and UN told the House Committee on Foreign
Affairs that Pakistan was playing a double game. He averred that Pakistan,
instead of being designated as a “major non-NATO ally”, should be on the “list
of state sponsors of terrorism”. Indeed, in February 2015, Edward R Royce,
Chairman, Committee on Foreign Relations wrote to Secretary of State John Kerry
questioning the strategic partnership between the US and Pakistan.
Fact is, Pakistan has insured itself into a secure refuge.
The reason is located in history—in the crafting of the principal agent
relationship with the US (and with China). On October 25, 1970, Richard Nixon
promised Pakistan’s military ruler Yahya Khan that “we will keep our word, we
will work with you, try to be as helpful as we can”. That was the price America
had to pay for Pakistan brokering peace with China which came through in July
1971. Despite an arms embargo, arms were made available to Pakistan via Turkey
and Iran. Indeed, in the 1970s, US Ambassador to India Patrick Moynihan urged
in a telegram to the President “Promise Pakistan Anything But Arms” as it would
be “feeding the fantasies” of Pakistan.
It would seem that four decades later, the US administration
is yet paying the EMI. Since 9/11, it has funded Pakistan to the tune of $25
billion—nearly 70 per cent of which was for security-related assistance. And
questions have been raised. In 2011, following Operation Geronimo, a bill
titled “Pakistan Foreign Aid Accountability Act” called on the Secretary of
State to certify that Pakistan did not know of Laden’s presence. In April 2016,
Congressman Matt Salmon (Chairman, Sub Committee on Asia) in his opening remarks on
the 2017 Budget (Afghanistan and Pakistan) questioned the conduct of Pakistan
and observed “too often they seem to do the bare minimum to keep the money
flowing”. Pakistan is also a recipient of aid from multilateral agencies like
IDA, World Bank and countries including Japan, the UK and Germany besides the
Middle East.
For sure, countries will focus on self-interest. What about
multilateral agencies—how sure are they or what is the accountability of
end-use of money? What about the state of human rights in Pakistan? The HRW
report is a litany of oppression. There is the persecution and execution of
minorities—Shia mosques being bombed, Ahmadis being killed, the use of
blasphemy laws to institutionalise discrimination. Worse, the government ended
an unofficial moratorium on judicial executions.
What about the UN, what about its mandate? Benjamin
Netanyahu recently described the transition of the UN from a “moral force to a
moral farce”. Fact is, the UN Security Council Counter Terrorism Committee
lists 38 resolutions of varying angles passed since 9/11. That, however, hasn’t
yet resulted in even a question on how Pakistan repeatedly pops in the
discourse on terror attacks—most recently the New York bomber. For sure, not
every Pakistani supports terrorism. But events and facts beg the question as to
why so many terrorists seem to have passed through Pakistan?
India is yet again at that intersection where it must avenge
its honour, yet it cannot afford to lose its moral stature.
Options range from and include diplomatic isolation, military action, denying
Indus river water and so on. Independent MP Rajeev Chandrashekar proposes to
move a Private Member’s Bill in the Rajya Sabha calling for Pakistan to be
declared a terrorist state. It stops short of asking the government to move a
resolution in the UN. It would be interesting to see how the government
responds to this approach.
They say you cannot escape your history and geography.
India’s challenge is to find answers independently to establish its
pre-eminence. That, however, still leaves open the question that now must be
answered by the evangelists of global good: how long will the international
community be mute spectators while a rogue state commits genocide at home and
sponsors terrorism across the world? It is an inflection point in history.
By Shankkar Aiyar
Author of Accidental India: A History of the Nation’s Passage
through Crisis and Change
shankkar.aiyar@gmail.com
Courtesy: The New Indian Express
No comments:
Post a Comment