Nov, 22 2009: The US, we know, is taking an extraordinary interest in Pakistan these days. It should not surprise us then that the American media too is obsessed with events in and around Pakistan. US President Obama?s long awaited policy review is on the verge of being announced. Meanwhile apprehensions are being voiced in Pakistan that a troops surge in Afghanistan could have a fallout here. Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani has reiterated to visiting CIA chief Leon Panetta that the US must share its roadmap on Afghanistan with Pakistan. Mr Panetta interacted with the top leadership, including President Asif Zardari, COAS General Ashfaq Pervez Kayani and the ISI chief, Ahmed Shuja Pasha. Each had their take to pass on to Mr Panetta.
While the CIA chief stressed the need to expand military operations beyond Swat/Malakand and South Waziristan to cut off militants crossing the border to attack American and NATO troops in Afghanistan, our ISI chief is said to have complained that the US was not taking due notice of India?s role in Afghanistan or considering Pakistan?s constraint in not being able to shift troops from the eastern border to expand operations in the tribal areas. This disjuncture is hardly new, but there do not appear to be any signs that the two sides are closer to agreement on these issues.
To set the cat among the pigeons, the Washington Times has reported that Mullah Omar, the leader of the Afghan Taliban, has been shifted with ISI help from Quetta to Karachi last month for fear of American drone attacks targeting him in Balochistan?s capital. The source for this startling revelation is two unnamed senior US intelligence officials and a former senior CIA officer. Such reports only widen the perceptual gulf between Pakistan and the US, much to the delight one is sure, of the tribe of varying shades of militants. The report has been denied by President Zardari and the foreign office, but this is just one more example of the conflicted relationship between the US and Pakistan on the issue of combating militancy and terrorism. Washington?s suspicions of the ISI harbouring Mullah Omar and his shura are rooted in the past policy of our military establishment of supporting the Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan while tilting against al Qaeda. All the protestations of Pakistan that this is no longer the case have failed to cut any ice with the Americans. It is conceivable that the Afghan Taliban leadership, including Mullah Omar, have found safe havens on Pakistani soil since 2001. But whether the ISI is complicit in this development remains an issue of discord between the two allies in the war on terror. Pakistan continues to deny any such complicity and has repeatedly asked for intelligence regarding Mullah Omar?s whereabouts, without much purchase so far.
The relationship post-9/11 between the US and Pakistan is still dogged by mutual suspicion dating back to Musharraf?s policy of, as the prime minister put it the other day, ?running with the hare and hunting with the hounds?, i.e. a duality that took on al Qaeda while protecting and supporting the Afghan Taliban. Until this divide is bridged, the mutually wary minuet between Washington and Islamabad may end up helping the very militants both sides say they want to see eliminated. *
SECOND EDITORIAL: Farewell Mr Jatoi
In the good old days, there used to be a breed of politician who were true gentlemen. Ghulam Mustafa Jatoi was one such politician. He passed away on November 20, 2009, leaving behind a legacy of wadera politics. He may undeniably have been a gentleman but that did not stand in the way of his succumbing to opportunism.
Ghulam Mustafa Jatoi was elected to the first Provincial Assembly of West Pakistan in 1958, and was re-elected in 1965. He joined the Pakistan People?s Party (PPP) in 1969. This was a timely move. The Ayub government had ended because of the countrywide movement against it. As a result, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto?s irresistible rise to become the most prominent political leader in West Pakistan was witnessed. Like every ?good? wadera, Mr Jatoi hitched his wagon to Bhutto?s in order to rise to power along with his leader. Jatoi was pretty typical of his class in this respect; he only joined politics in order to promote and safeguard his own interests. The entry of political waderas into the PPP was harbinger of the eventual failure of Bhutto?s land reforms. The feudal class in the PPP, and other political parties, have always subverted any move towards social or economic reform that challenges their vested interest.
Mr Jatoi was quite active in the Movement for the Restoration of Democracy (MRD) against the Zia government. Despite this, when Benazir Bhutto came back from her exile in 1986, differences between Mr Jatoi and Ms Bhutto led him to leave the PPP and form his own party, the National People?s Party (NPP). Many stalwarts of the PPP who had fallen out with Ms Bhutto for the same reasons as Mr Jatoi joined his party. This was billed at the time as the departure from the PPP of the ?uncles?, i.e. senior colleagues of Mr Bhutto who perhaps underestimated the political skill of the young Ms Bhutto. In a case of classic opportunism, the NPP led by Mr Jatoi embraced the Islami Jamhoori Ittehad (IJI) in 1988, as the antithesis of the Benazir-led PPP. Subsequently, Jatoi became the caretaker prime minister after the dismissal of Ms Bhutto?s first government in 1990. This proved a costly political blunder. Mr Jatoi lost credibility due to this move and could never really recover from the stigma of having played into the hands of the establishment. Political sagacity and integrity are the direct opposites of political opportunism. It is hoped that our political class would learn from the fate of Mr Jatoi and not abandon principles for the sake of the crumbs of office. dailytimes.com.pk