SPY EYES

The 13^th anniversary of “Yaum-e-Takbir”, commemorating Pakistan’s crossing the nuclear threshold, passed uneventfully, apart from an attack in Bajaur Agency in which eight persons were killed and dozen other injured. Numerous national and international events have taken place since 1998 but the detractors of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons’ program have not forgiven Pakistan for committing the cardinal sin of going nuclear. As early as 1979, the United States cut off aid to Pakistan under section 669 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (FAA) on the plea that Pakistan had broken the taboo of going nuclear and had secretly begun construction of a uranium enrichment facility. The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan changed the circumstances and aid to Pakistan was restored since the US needed Pakistan as an ally to contain and defeat the USSR in Afghanistan.

Throughout the eighties, there were various reports in the international media, blackballing Pakistan’s nuclear program. Israel, India and elements in the US joined forces to criticize and target Pakistan. During the same period, the book “Islamic Bomb” and a BBC documentary by the same title were released, citing Pakistan’s nuclear weapons endeavour.

The US government continued to turn a blind eye due to its strategic need of Pakistan. In 1985 the Pressler Amendment [section 620E(e) of the Foreign Assistance Act] was approved by US government, necessitating a total cut-off of U.S. aid to Islamabad unless the US president can certify that Pakistan does not possess a nuclear weapon, and that continued US aid will significantly decrease the probability of its developing one in the future. President Reagan and his successor, Bush (senior) continued providing the waiver, but the moment the USSR was routed from Afghanistan, the US government invoked the Pressler Amendment, imposing embargos on Pakistan.

More trouble and further sanctions were fated for Pakistan, when it indulged in Kargil adventurism. Pakistan became a pariah state, when the military removed the democratically elected Mian Nawaz Sharif from the seat of power and installed General Musharraf. Pakistan’s status changed overnight with 9/11 and General Musharraf’s complete submission to the US. From the “most sanctioned”, Pakistan became the “most allied” non-NATO ally and bent backwards to accommodate US demands of providing its bases for the US war on terror, housing US servicemen, CIA operatives and even committing Pakistan’s Armed Forces in the effort. When the going got tough in Afghanistan, pressure started mounting on Pakistan to “Do More”; one of the leverages being used was Pakistan’s nukes. First it was the disclosure of nuclear proliferation through “Khan Network”, followed by a media tirade on the security of Pakistan’s nukes and the threat they posed if they fell in the grasp of terrorists, followed by organized and well choreographed attacks on Pakistan’s defence installations like the GHQ, Naval War College, Air Force facilities and most recently, PNS Mehran.

There is a method in the madness because Pakistan has traversed this route earlier as mentioned above. The “Khan Network” was used as a millstone around Pakistan’s neck and pressure has been applied whenever the need arose to blackmail Pakistan into submission and action. It has become crystal clear through recent events that not only is Pakistan’s nuclear program used to pressurize Pakistan, but the very nukes are in danger of being confiscated through international and US legislation on the subject. According to the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, the five officially declared nuclear weapon states US, Russia, UK, France and China are signatories to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Four more states, Israel, India, Pakistan and North Korea, have developed nuclear weapons outside the treaty. Iran has a nuclear power program, which is alleged to hide a nuclear weapons program.

South Africa destroyed its nuclear weapons in 1991, while Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan, inherited nukes from USSR but have now either destroyed or sent them back to Russia under US/UN pressure. To build a case against Pakistan, besides its military installations, an attack on a nuclear facility is imminent, so that it can be demonstrated that Pakistan is incapable of guarding its nukes. It is imperative for Pakistan to take steps to thwart and frustrate such a conspiracy. Some Pakistani pacifists believe Pakistan should hand over its nukes for international safekeeping, without realizing that if Pakistan had not possessed nukes, it would have been devoured by India and a number of other detractors, decades ago. Only the people of Pakistan can decide the future of the nukes, for which they have sacrificed and are ready to guard with their lives.

Despite tough statements of the US high officials, showing a paradoxical approach of Washington against Islamabad in connection with Osama Bin Laden who was killed in a US military raid at Abbottabad in Pakistan, America wants to continue its relationship with Pakistan which is a frontline state of war on terror.

On May 18, this year, some US Senators and law-makers urged the Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Defence Secretary Robert Gates to review the security assistance of Pakistan, while some suggested cutting off the aid of the former, saying that some of its intelligence agencies were aware of the hideout of Bin Laden. But on May 19, Defence Secretary Gates and Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen stated that there was no evidence that leaders in Islamabad knew the whereabouts of the Al Qaeda chief before a US raid. They also advised against cutting off aid to Pakistan for its failure to go after terrorist leaders, while indicating that Washington had important interests at stake and that Islamabad had already been “humiliated” by the raid.

Meanwhile in wake of trust deficit and strained relations between Islamabad and Washington, the visit of the US Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Senator John Kerry to Islamabad was of great significance. While showing previous contradictory approach of America towards Pakistan, on May I6, John Kerry pointed out that future relations of the United States with Islamabad would be determined by “its actions, not words,” emphasizing to ‘do more’ against the militants by ignoring the sacrifices of Pak Army and intelligence agencies—especially ISI regarding war against terrorism. However, having resolved some of the puzzles, lingering since Bin Laden’s death in Abbottabad, Pakistan and the US agreed to work together in any future actions against high-value targets in Pakistan.

Senator Kerry also remarked that the US respects Pakistan’s national interest and sovereignty. But his words coincided with the CIA-operated two drone attacks which killed more than ten people in Miranshah. At the same time, Pakistani ground troops opened fire on two NATOhelicopters that crossed into Pakistan’s airspace from Afghanistan and targeted a security check post of our country. Afterwards, attacks by the US predators continued intermittently, killing a number of innocent persons on Pakistan’s soil.

While on May 15, during his trip to Afghanistan, John Kerry had clearly revealed that the US will consider “all options” including high-value targets in Pakistan, if it has intelligence that the elusive Afghan Taliban leader Mullah Omar is hiding in Pakistan. The statement of Kerry was verified by the US President Obama who made it clear in a BBC interview on May 22 that he would “approve a new incursion into Pakistan, if the United States found another leading militant there.”

Nevertheless, America’s such an ambivalent policy is not without some hidden agenda. In this context, under the pretext of high-value targets in Pakistan, cross-border-terrorism in relation to Afghanistan, blame game against Pakistan’s spy agency ISI and allegation about other Al Qaeda leaders’ presence in Pakistan—the US which is in collusion with India and Israel, wants to ‘denuclearize’ Pakistan as the latter is the only Islamic country, possessing nuclear weapons. In this regard, secret agencies such as American CIA, Indian RAW and Israeli Mossad are collectively destabilizing Pakistan by supporting various subversive acts like bomb blasts, suicide attacks and targeted killings.

It is mentionable that on September 3, 2008, American Special Operations forces attacked a Pakistani village, Angoor Ada, conducting a ground raid on Pakistani soil, which killed more than 60 innocent people. Notably, since the announcement of the US new strategy to “include targeting Pakistan’s tribal areas” as disclosed by the Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen on September 10, 2008, US drone strikes on Pakistan’s tribal areas have intensified, while May 2 raid at Abbottabad including American intentions to conduct more high-value targets in Pakistan are clear indications that the US wants to make Pakistan insecure.

In fact, due to its failed adventure in coping with the Afghan Taliban, America has already made itself insecure as ambush assaults and suicide attacks continue on the Afghans and coalition forces in Afghanistan. Now by ignoring the dangers of its new strategy to directly strike Pakistan’s tribal regions—violation of the sovereignty of an independent state, without caring for the reaction of the elected government as well as the people of the country, Washington is challenging the security of our country, thus making itself more insecure in turn.

This is of particular attention that renowned power-theorists, Morgenthau, Waltz and Kissinger see international relations as constituting a search for security in the world where there is no super agency to impose law, and where maximization of power is the only route to state security. This is because of this reason that America and its allies of war on terror want security only for themselves, and seek to guarantee it through lethal force. Intermittently, heavy aerial bombardment and ground shelling by their forces in Iraq, Afghanistan and inside Pakistani border, killing tens of thousands of innocent civilians might be cited as an example. A similar pattern of state terrorism could be noted in case of Palestine, Kashmir, Somalia etc.

On the other side, Muslim militants, fighting against the imperialist powers through ambush rocket attacks and suicide bombers have broken the myth of old model of power-based security which only safeguards the interest of the US-led western countries at the cost of the small states. In this regard, particularly Pakistan has already been facing multifaceted crises owing to its support to Washington. In this respect, a perennial wave of suicide attacks in the country, targeting law-enforcement agencies coupled with a continuous battle with the militants in the Frontier Province could be noted as an instance. As violations of Pakistan’s sovereignty show that America does not care for any internal backlash in Pakistan, so it is determined to create insecurity in the country.

Nonetheless, US war-mongering hidden strategy against Pakistan will further expedite extremism among the young men, turning them into suicide bombers, radicalizing a vast region from Pakistan to Syria, ultimately making America insecure—besides endangering the world peace. In Pakistan, it will certainly result into more unity among the elected government, security forces, the general masses and even the Pakistani religious organisations, consequently massive hostility and resistance against Americans. In such a scenario, Islamabad could be compelled to stop NATO supply to Afghanistan as public in the country is already protesting against the NATO containers which pass through Pakistan.

In the present era of globalization, there is a direct relationship between internal and external security. If America intends to convert Pakistan into a “failed state” by causing instability, it is, in fact, creating external insecurity which is likely to further harm America’s larger geo-political and economic interests on regional and global level.

In the aftermath of 9/11, western thinktanks have recognized inter-relationship between economics, politics and terrorism. Now, they agree in light of the US failed strategy, prolonged war against terrorism and defeatism in Afghanistan that religious fanaticism and stiff resistance of the Islamic militants are linked to political and economic injustices. Taking cognizance of this fact, the US must abandon its revised military strategy which entails Pakistan as the former still depends upon old power factor which has already failed. Instead, America should increase its economic and security aid to Pakistan and must make practical efforts for the development of infrastructure in FATA. In this context, Washington should also favour peace deals with the militants not only in Pakistan but also in Afghanistan where more lawlessness is causing more terrorism.

As regards the question of Pak-US security, perhaps Washington has failed to recognize that security is a two-way traffic. If America needs security, Pakistan also wants the same. Security cannot be obtained by endangering the security of our country. In these, terms, Pakistan’s insecurity means US insecurity.

When I was reflecting on Netanyahu’s domination and control of the Congress of the United States of America, the first headline that came into my mind for this article wasGoodbye to peace. I’ll now explain why I think the headline above is more appropriate.

Because of its flirtation with the proposition that peace between an Israeli and Palestinian state must be based on pre-1967 borders with mutually agreed land swaps,President Obama’s speech on Middle East policy principles did one useful thing. And it was Ha-aretz’s Gideon Levy, the conscience of Israeli journalism, who put his finger most firmly on it. We should be grateful to Obama, he wrote, because his speech “exposed the naked truth – that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu does not want peace.”

The Gentile me almost always agrees with Gideon but on this occasion, and leaving aside the fact that it was Netanyahu’s rejection of what Obama said initially that exposed the naked truth, I think Gideon’s version of it needs two clarifications.

One is that the truth was exposed like never before only to those who have not been brainwashed by Zionist propaganda – only a minority of Americans, for example.

The other boils down to this. What Netanyahu does want, and only because of his concern about Israel’s growing isolation in the world, is peace on Zionism’s terms, which means the Palestinians giving up their struggle for an acceptable minimum of justice and accepting crumbs from Zionism’s table in the shape of three or four Bantustatans on about 40% of the West Bank, and which they could call a state if they wished. That’s what Netanyahu meant but did not say when, at his arrogant, insufferably self-righteous and devious best, he assured both houses of the U.S. Congress that “We’ll be generous about the size of the Palestinian state.” Put another way, what Netanyahu doesn’t want is peace on terms the vast majority of Palestinians and most other Arabs and Muslims could accept – a complete end to Israel’s 1967 occupation and a contiguous and viable Palestinian mini state on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, with Jerusalem an open city and the capital of two states.

The only question of interest about Netanyahu is this. Does he really believe the nonsense he speaks about the alleged threats to Israel’s security or is he a smooth-talking but diabolical salesman, selling what he knows to be Zionist propaganda lies as truth?

Obama’s speech also exposed (again) the weakness of his own position on policy matters for Israel/Palestine when he said:“Ultimately it is up to the Israelis and the Palestinians to take action. No peace can be imposed upon them – not by the United States, not by anybody else.”

As things are that means Israel remains free to continue its criminal ways:

- defying UN Security Council resolutions and international law;

- pushing ahead with more and more illegal settlements to consolidate its hold on those parts of occupied West Bank it intends to keep for ever;

- oppressing the occupied Palestinians in the hope that, out of complete despair, they will either give up their struggle for an acceptable minimum amount of justice and be prepared to accept crumbs from Zionism’s table or, better still from Zionism’s perspective, will abandon their homeland and seek a new life elsewhere in the Arab world and beyond; and

- resorting to state terrorism (attacks on neighbouring Arab countries and possibly Iran) whenever its leaders feel the need to impose their will on the region.

Because of Israel’s dependence on the U.S. in a number of ways, not the least of them being the American veto of Security Council resolutions not to Israel’s liking, Obama does have the leverage to impose a Middle East peace on terms that would provide the Palestinians with an acceptable amount of justice without any risk to Israel’s security. And there’s a very compelling case for saying he ought to do so if only to best protect America’s own interests. I believe Obama knows this, so the question of real interest about him is this. Why won’t he act?

The answer of almost all of his critics who call and campaign in various ways for justice for the Palestinians is that he’s a willing tool of the Zionist lobby. I don’t believe this to be the case. I think the reality of Obama’s position was best summed up by Professor John J. Mearsheimer. To Al Jazeera recently he said this:

“ The sad fact is that Obama has remarkably little manoeuvre room on the foreign policy front. The most important item on his agenda is settling the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and there he knows what has to be done: Push both sides toward a two-state solution, which is the best outcome for all the parties, including the United States. Indeed, he has been trying to do just that since he took office in January 2009. But the remarkably powerful Israel lobby makes it virtually impossible for him to put meaningful pressure on Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who is committed to creating a Greater Israel in which the Palestinians are restricted to a handful of disconnected and impoverished enclaves. And Obama is certainly not going to buck the lobby – with the 2012 presidential election looming larger every day… The bottom line is that the US is in deep trouble in the Middle East and needs new policies for that region. But regrettably there is little prospect of that happening anytime soon. All of this is to say that there was no way that Obama could do anything but disappoint with Thursday’s speech, because he is trapped in an iron cage.”

This cage is, of course, the Zionist lobby’s control through its many stooges in Congress of policy for Israel-Palestine. It’s the cage in which post Eisenhower every American president has been trapped. As former ambassador Chas Freeman put it in a recent interview with Russia Today, Israeli leaders don’t have to listen to the president because they know their lobby can block him in Congress.

And that’s why, despite the fact that like Ilan Pappe I am sick and tired of Obama’s rhetoric, I’ve come to the conclusion that no useful purpose is served by supporters of justice for the Palestinians attacking him. He’s the wrong target. The right target is America’s pork-barrel system of politics which puts what passes for democracy up for sale to the highest bidders. In this context I say, have always said, that I don’t blame the Zionist lobby for playing the game the way it does. It is only playing by the rules. It’s the rules that need to be changed if Obama in a second term, or any future American president, is going to be able to escape from the cage and use the leverage he has to oblige Israel to be serious about peace on terms virtually all Palestinians and most other Arabs and Muslims everywhere could accept.

Some members of Congress who applauded Netanyahu in a scene that reminded me of the enthusiasm for Hitler at Nazi rallies accused Obama of betraying Israel. There has indeed been a betrayal, but what has been betrayed is democracy in America. The many members of Congress who read from Zionism’s script and dance to its tune in order to secure election campaign funds and organized Jewish votes in tight races are not merely stooges. Because they are putting the interests of a foreign power above those of their own country, it’s time to call them what they really are – traitors.

In my view exposing them as such should be given the highest priority by all who campaign in various ways for justice for the Palestinians and peace for all.

Footnote:

Memo to all concerned in Congress and the White House.

Israel is not a “Jewish state”. How could it be when about a quarter of its citizens are Arabs and mainly Muslim? Israel is a Zionist state. It will only be a Jewish state when it has completed its ethnic cleansing program.

Since 1950s, Pakistani governments, both military and civilian have been fatally addicted to US financial assistance. Pakistani rulers have always been ready to bend backwards to receive another dose of US aid. Hillary Clinton and Admiral Mullen were certainly not short of affirmatively nodding audience during their recent visit to Pakistan.

However, at a common man’s level, sponsorsof anti-Pakistan strictures on American aid like congress-men Glenn, Symington, Pressler, Brown, Kerry-Lugar etc are house-hold names in Pakistan, reminding the nation of chequered history of American sanctions and strings.

American perception has it that Pakistan is almost at the brink of bankruptcy and it is the US assistance that is providing the lifeline for sustenance. Direct and indirect beneficiaries of American aid in Pakistan faithfully work overtime to strengthen this feeling amongst the Pakistani public as well, however statistics speak otherwise. Ishrat Husain, a former governor of State Bank has recently opined that US aid does not help the government’s precarious fiscal situation in any meaningful way as only ‘12-15 per cent of the total amount is channelled for budgetary support…Assuming that whole $3 billion (per annum) in economic and military is disbursed fully, this accounts for less than seven per cent of the total foreign exchange earnings of the country…The increase in export revenues and remittances in the current year was almost twice that amount.’

It seems that every American Congressman and Think Tank has an opinion on what the US should do with its aid to Pakistan. There have been calls to freeze all assistance to Pakistan as well as calls to stay the course. Nearly three out of four Americans back cuts. Many of the loudest voices in Congress have been for attaching additional strings to the aid.

As regards significance of the aid, World Bank data shows that during the previous five years, net Official Development Assistance (ODA) from all sources to Pakistan has averaged less than 1.5 per cent of its Gross National Income. Per capita aid from all sources in 2009 was US$14 only! These facts do not point towards any meltdown if the American aid is withheld.

Shahid Javed Burki, a former World Bank Vice President is of the view that ‘cutting of civilian aid would have only a 0.14 percent impact on Pakistan’s GDP growth’. “As long as the multilateral aid continues, it won’t impact Pakistan’s economy,” says Sartaj Aziz, a former finance minister. Out of $ 1.5 billion per annum authorisation by Kerry-Lugar-Burman Act, actual disbursements have been $275 million and $676 million during 2009 & 2010 respectively. This includes flood relief donation of $500 million.

Therefore, it would be naïve to presume that withholding of US assistance is so significant that it would result into strategic collapse. But the real concern for Pakistan’s solvency would be loss of support from international lenders like the World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF); both look towards the US before deciding. IMF may deny the bailout request until a last-minute nod by the White House.

On numerous occasions, American aid has been used as carrot and stick to entice Pakistan to do the American bidding. The carrot has been the promise of additional financial aid while the stick has been the threat of withholding of already sanctioned aid. Financial experts in Pakistan have pointed out that out of the lump sum assistance sanctioned by the US, only a fraction reaches the national exchequer; bulk is siphoned off as consultancy charges to the US appointed agents and overseers.

A candid estimate puts losses to Pakistan’s economy due to its participation in war on terror around US$ 70 billion. The US has provided $20.7 billion to Pakistan since 2002, which makes about 0.1 percent of the American treasure spent on war on terror over the same period. A little more than two-third of $ 20.7 billion went to military use, the remainder to civilian. The biggest head, consuming $8.9 billion, is “Coalition Support Funds.” Washington sanctioned this amount for Pakistan’s military as compensation for services rendered on behalf of the US military. However, a sizeable portion of it remains un-remitted. The US is getting obnoxiously stingy on reimbursements of this fund, rejecting 44 percent claims in 2009, as compared to 1.6 percent in 2005.

The uncertain environment that arose as a sequel to ‘Operation Geronimo’ has compelled Pakistan to launch an aggressive outreach plan for mobilizing alternative contingency sources.

China and Russia are particularly alarmed by the renewed American unilateralism. Both are increasingly sympathetic towards Pakistan’s predicament and are deeply concerned about fresh US inclinations towards unilateralism. Russian and Chinese reactions to the Abbott Abad raid spared the Pakistani establishment from rampant criticism.

Pakistani President’s recent visit to Russia was interesting. Though the visit was already planned, the timing appeared promising for Pakistan. Russia has been increasingly uncomfortable with India’s rapprochement with the United States and realizes the potentially damaging implications of India’s diversification of foreign relations for Russo-Indian partnership. Pakistan has now taken centre stage in Russia’s efforts to play a more active role in Central and South Asia as Moscow braces for the drawdown of American led coalition forces in Afghanistan. Moscow now sees Islamabad as part of solution to region’s problems. Recent visit of Colonel General Alexander Postnikov, Russian Ground Forces Commander-in Chief, to Pakistan indicates that Pak-Russian relations are moving ahead on sound footing.

On the heels of Presidential visit to Russia, Pakistani Prime Minister visited China. Most glaring outcome of this visit was handing over of the management of Gwadar port to China. The Statesman, reported while quoting the Press Trust of India that the Chinese government has warned Washington “in unequivocal terms that any attack on Pakistan would be construed as an attack on China,” and advised the US government “to respect Pakistan’s sovereignty.”

Iran is ready to provide oil on deferred payments and electricity on competitive prices. We can always count on Saudi Arabia, UAE and other friendly countries for economic support.

Economic assistance from developed to developing countries always accompanies strings of various kinds. American aid to Pakistan is no exception; however it has become a highly touchy matter due to differing perceptions about its hidden agenda. Perpetual dependency has resulted in relegating Pakistan to a client state or a ‘rental commodity’. America has been able to accrue an unbalanced influence over Pakistan’s policy resulting into a subservient association.

Pakistan’s military leadership needs to re-evaluate the necessity of American military hardware viz. a. viz the incremental erosion of our national sovereignty. Though American systems are far ahead in technological superiority, we need to look towards recent Indian decision of declining American offer of F-16 and F-18 aircraft and going for alternative sources of supply. If India can do without American hardware, we can also live without it.

Now, it is time for the Pakistani nation to carry out a reality check, take a fresh stock of the cost benefit asymmetry and make a distinction between reality and myth of American aid.