• Investment World
• eWorld
• Brand Line
• Mentor
• Life
• Brand Quest
• The New Manager
• BL Club
• Smartbuy
• Books

Stocks

• Quotes
• SE Diary
• Scoreboard
• Open-End Mutual Fund

Cross Currency

• Rates
  
  

Shipping

• Ports
  
  

Archives

• Yesterday
• Datewise
• Resources
• In Focus
• In Depth
• Events 2007

Group Sites

• The Hindu
• The Hindu ePaper
• Business Line
• Business Line ePaper
• Sportstar
• Frontline
• The Hindu eBooks
• The Hindu Images

American Special Representative for “Af-pak” (an acronym for Afghanistan and Pakistan), Richard Holbrooke, while expressing appreciation for India’s “full support” for the reconstruction of Afghanistan, noted in Delhi on April 8: “For the first time since the Partition, India, Pakistan and the US face a common threat” and “we must work together and at the centre of the problem, which is Pakistan”.

Holbrooke was in Delhi with America’s most senior military official Admiral Mike Mullen, who is regarded as a thorough professional. Holbrooke and Mullen arrived in Delhi after an unusually tempestuous visit to Pakistan, where they got a taste of Pakistani duplicity and doublespeak. True to form, the Pakistanis denied Mullen’s assertion that the ISI was providing haven and support to the Taliban leadership in Quetta and to Taliban commanders like Jalaluddin Haqqani.

The American delegation was also subjected to the strange spectacle of President Zardari virtually holding out the begging bowl for more economic assistance, while Foreign Minister Qureshi pontificated about his country refusing to accept aid with any strings attached!

The Americans now openly refer to Pakistani “paranoia” about India. The Pakistanis make no bones about justifying support for the Taliban on the grounds that every one of the 4,000 Indians involved in economic assistance in Afghanistan is a spy, out to undermine Pakistan’s security. While Mullen claims periodically that Gen Ashfaq Pervez Kiyani is sincere in his determination to root out Taliban extremism, other reports suggest that the CIA has evidence of Kiyani describing Taliban military commander Haqqani as a “strategic asset”.

And any belief that a hardnosed Pakistani General like Kiyani can be turned around by soft words and flattery is totally misplaced. Moreover, the Americans know that the July 2008 attack on the Indian Embassy in Kabul was executed by the “Haqqani network” with clearance and support from the highest levels of the Pakistan army and ISI.

Further, the Americans can no longer ignore the close nexus that exists between the Taliban, on the one hand, and Jihadi groups operating against India from Pakistan’s Punjab Province, on the other. Hence, one now hears louder American insistence that Pakistan must end support for all terrorist groups, whether operating against Afghanistan or India. The question now being asked internationally is whether President Obama’s new strategy in Afghanistan will work. The main military elements in this strategy are a “surge” in American troop strength in Afghanistan to deal with an expected summer offensive by the Taliban, while making it clear to the Taliban leadership that they cannot win militarily.

This is to be supplemented by boosting the strength of the Afghan National Army (ANA) from 80,000 to 134,000 men and equipping and training it for effective counter-insurgency. This could pave the way for a gradual reduction in the American military role before the next US Presidential elections, though a long term American military presence in centres like Kandahar appears likely.

Politically, the aim is to take development projects to the grassroots, with substantial increase in international economic assistance. Diplomatically, the process of restoring normalcy and peace in Afghanistan is to be facilitated by bringing in key regional and neighbouring countries, such as Iran, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Turkey, Russia, China and India, to ensure full international support for the effort. Hopefully, the Americas will avoid the temptation of interfering in forthcoming elections in Afghanistan.

The Americans seem to have curbed their earlier enthusiasm for involving the so-called “moderate Taliban” in a process of reconciliation.

They have found that the entire Taliban leadership, now under Pakistani protection, has no interest in renouncing violence and joining a process of political reconciliation, in which they have to sit together with other Afghans, who do not share their virulently extremist views.

But the real difficulty the international community is going to face is that despite its professions of innocence, the Pakistani military establishment has no intention of giving up either its quest for “strategic depth” in Afghanistan by backing the Taliban, or its determination to continue to “bleed India,” by backing such groups as the Lashkar-e-Taiba and the Jaish-e-Mohammed-groups that make no secret of their support for the Taliban and their belief that “Hindus, Jews and Christians are enemies of Islam”.

Thus, we are moving towards a situation wherein the Pakistan army’s determination to maintain its support for militant Islamic groups is going to clash with larger American and NATO objectives in a region from where the members of the western alliance confront prospects of continuing terrorist attacks on their own capitals and citizens.

The Americans are taking several steps to deal with Pakistani obduracy. The proposed five-year economic assistance package of $7.5 billion is being linked to Pakistan ending its support for terrorist groups, with the House of Representatives asking for access to Dr A.Q. Khan and his associates who were involved in transfer of nuclear technology to Libya, Iran and North Korea.

The US is also likely to insist that other aid donors place similar conditions. Military assistance will be largely provided for enhancing anti-insurgency capabilities and not for items like F-16 fighters, for deployment against India. But, will this strategy work, given Pakistan’s propensity to blackmail the world by claiming that it its economy will collapse and its nuclear weapons fall into the hands of Islamic extremists, if foreign assistance ends?

Moreover, will threats of cut off of US military assistance have any effect, when China continues to provide Pakistan not just conventional weapons like JF-17 and J-10 fighters and naval frigates, but also assistance for plutonium nuclear warheads and cruise missiles?

Even as Pakistan plays these diplomatic games, the situation within Pakistan is spiralling out of control. The ISI-backed jihadi groups allied to the Taliban have indulged in attacks on Shia mosques and even eliminated the leadership of the Sufi-oriented Bareilvi sect in the country.

With virtually the entire Northwest Frontier Province under Taliban control, Islamic radicalism is spreading through Southern Punjab into towns from where officers and soldiers of the Pakistan army are recruited.

The army itself is getting radicalised, reflecting sociological trends within the Punjabi heartland. Moreover, the Punjabi military elite in Pakistan do not relish the prospect of fighting Pashtuns. It is, therefore, unrealistic for the Americans to expect the Pakistan army has either the will or the inclination to deal with the Pashtun Taliban.

The Americans now appear to better understand the fragilities and failings in the Pakistani State. With American supply convoys being regularly attacked within Pakistan, Washington and its NATO allies are finalising agreements with Russia, Uzbekistan, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan and even Iran to provide alternative supply routes to Afghanistan, bypassing Pakistan, thus eroding the strategic salience of Pakistan.

But with the Pakistan army bent on retaining its jihadi infrastructure, would Washington have any choice but to permit the Afghan Army, which is being built up, to play a more pro-active role in guarding Afghanistan’s frontiers, against Taliban incursions from Pakistani soil? Given this volatile scenario, New Delhi will have to devise new and more effective strategies to guarantee national security.

More Stories on : Politics | Terrorism | Foreign Relations

Article E-Mail :: Comment :: Syndication :: Printer Friendly Page

Copyright © 2009, The Hindu Business Line. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu Business Line