Jan 12, 2003 Op Eds

Jan 12, 2003 Opinion Editorials http://www.aljazeerah.info

Have the Americans given sufficient thought to the calendar they propose for their war against Iraq? According to serious analysts, the date for the invasion is juggling between Feb. 15 and 21. Washington is expected to wait till the end of January for United Nations inspectors to deliver their full report (which, so far, has not discovered a smoking gun in Iraq, leave alone a smoking weapons of mass destruction). The White House will then spend a fortnight trying to get another, and hopefully unequivocal, resolution passed through the Security Council to serve as the international cloak before the dagger. Come Feb. 15: bang!

Does America realize that the dates clash directly with the Cricket World Cup in South Africa and Zimbabwe? The Americans could win the war on the ground and lose it in the air. Given a choice, what would you watch on television: cricket or war? President George Bush cannot be so isolationist as to be indifferent to the fact that the whole of the former British Empire, plus Holland, will be riveted to cricket rather than the war.

It is obvious that Britain does not care, but that is no surprise. Britain has left its empire behind, physically, psychologically, emotionally; even erased it from her memory. But surely America cannot be so irresponsible. After all, America has to run the world, and do so, according to Texan optimists, for the rest of this century. That is a long haul. America could need the help of client states, as available from the old Empire.

It is true that China, Russia, Germany, France, Turkey and Japan will not be watching the Cricket World Cup, and will therefore concentrate their whole attention on America’s techno-military prowess in the deserts, marshes and mountains of Iraq. However, I hope the penny has dropped. All these nations are potential competitors of America, not allies, either singly or together, in the race to dominate the world in this century. Europe has already stated its claim to equality, and the euro is now valued above the dollar. The French already hate Americans (except as tourists). The Germans are more guarded and the Italians are checking out both sides. But France and Germany are determined to turn Europe into the superpower of the 21st century, and prevent the unchallenged sway of the dollar and the gunship. Russia has not given up its ambitions; it is only a matter of time before it begins to growl again, this time with more czarist cadence than communist. China is well on its way to economic superstardom, backed by steely military muscle. As for Japan, who can really predict what it will do? It is the only race that actually dared to invade America, did so with smashing success, and then fought a long war against the Americans. Who knows where it will sit when opportunity beckons?

So loyal, and useful, client states can only come from the English-speaking, cricket-playing world. Useful, because there is no point in having a client state that cannot look after itself: a superpower wants a comprador, not a leech. And how is the old Empire going to be impressed if we spend February and March rooting for Sachin Tendulkar instead of Gen. Tommy Franks? What would you rather watch on Feb. 12? India vs. Holland or America vs. Iraq? Actually since India is playing Holland and I can’t recall the name of a single Dutch cricketer, I might actually switch to the America-Iraq encounter. On the other hand, since India were turned into toast by New Zealand, one can never be sure of what India does against any team. Even this one could become a thriller, with India losing in the last over still two runs behind Holland’s score of 167. You never know.

There is no doubt in my mind about the next match, though. On Feb. 15 India plays Australia, and I am going to stick to this even if George Bush is celebrating victory with a Mass in Baghdad Cathedral. Australia will already have beaten Pakistan by then. Glenn McGrath and Shane Warne will have recovered from their injuries, and fired up. Frankly, if you ask me, I don’t think that either of them was in any serious trouble last month. They just wanted some rest from beating up England. Even for an Australian, smashing England into pulp can become boring. They wanted rest, in order to be fresh and fully fit for the World Cup. You notice this in Sachin as well. He has become a minimalist against New Zealand. They are all gearing up for the ‘Real Thing’. They also know that this will be their last World Cup. Sachin Tendulkar is 30, as are Rahul Dravid and Saurav Ganguly. The Australians are much older. The next World Cup will be in the West Indies, four years later. You cannot be fit for World Cup fielding at the age of 34 or more. Your body is past it. The Warnes and Tendulkars will squeeze every ounce of glory from this Cup. A lifetime of product endorsements depends upon it. Big Cricket is Big Money. The only person who will not retire by then will be Saurav Ganguly, because he will not go till he is pushed and no one will push him as long as Jagmohan Dalmiya is around, and Dalmiya is going to be around forever. So there.

Even a nuclear war would not drag me away from the India-Pakistan match on March 1. This will be a hinge game. So much could hinge on it. For instance, who of the two teams would make it to the next round, the Super Six category. Who would be sacked by their Board for losing could depend on this match. And, of course, this match could lead to a resumption of Indo-Pak cricket on the Subcontinent (if you can play in South Africa, why not here?), thereby ushering in a new era of peace, defusing the terrorist-induced crisis, changing the mood on Kashmir, persuading Islamabad to take firm steps toward the regime of SAPTA and SAFTA (agreed by all at Katmandu in January 2002), and eventually eliminating the possibility of nuclear war between India and Pakistan. Saurav Ganguly and Waqar Younis could be nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize if they get it right at the Super Sport Park in Centurion on March 1.

We all know who is going to win the America-Iraq match. That is a no-brainer. The World Cup is more difficult to predict. Australia is the George Bush of the Cup. India is giving every indication of being the Saddam Hussein: lots of support from people who cannot influence the result, immense posturing but no real hope.

There is of course what might be called the Pepsi Option. It is sleazy but it’s there. It has been featured in Pepsi ads on television: you must have seen it, it always comes when something interesting is about to happen in the game. A clever clever Indian unplugs the Pepsi dispenser and Warne, Nasser Hussein, Jonty Rhodes et al injure themselves in frustration. You get the idea? If you can’t defeat them fair and square, injure them through subterfuge. Alas, Pepsi Sleaze won’t work. Warne and Company may be greedy, but they are not stupid.

Will real sleaze work? It is estimated that some 80 percent of the Cup money will be provided by the Indian advertiser. The Indian advertiser will not pay unless India plays. Ratings drop like a stone in a pond if India is not on the field. You can take a ten-second ad for 10,000 rupees when Australia plays South Africa, which is a proper game of cricket. Let India play Namibia and the same ad costs you 100,000 rupees. You see how crucial it is to ensure that India get into the Super Six round?

So could the multinationals (it sometimes seems that the economic future of South Korea and Japan depends on the World Cup) spread the goodies to ensure that a few games are thrown? The idea has its merits. Cricket is money, not national pride. If money can work overground, it can also work underground. Corruption has already entered the game. It is also multiracial. Remember Hansie Cronje? May his soul rest in peace since his last days were so tortured.

The problem is that administrators have now equipped themselves with hawk-eyes. Everything is monitored. They are even keeping tabs on bowlers who leave the field after finishing their ten overs so that a better fielder can replace them in the crucial last over. Unfortunately, even bribery and corruption must be ruled out. We cannot however rule out miracles. Both Saddam Hussein and Saurav Ganguly are currently praying for one.

Sharon’s chances

Arab News, 12 January 2003
-

One of the oddest things about the political mess into which Israeli Premier Ariel Sharon has got himself is that it is illegal under Israel electoral law to accept campaign contributions from abroad. Israel’s entire existence has long depended upon economic and military aid from successive United States governments, along with hefty flows of cash from the world Zionist community, many of whom are also US-based.

Yet here is the Likud party’s Ariel Sharon, the most hawkish Zionist leader of Israel since Menachem Begin, under serious attack for taking a $1.5 million loan from a South African friend, which was used to pay back excessive and therefore also illegal campaign contributions from supporters in Israel.

Coupled with the recent court overthrow of an electoral ban on the Knesset’s only two Arab legislators, it may seem as if Israel is shifting away from its repressive stance on the Palestinians and that, just over two weeks before the general election, liberal views are gaining an unexpected ascendancy.

Such optimism is almost certainly unfounded. Two characteristics about Israel have long been clear. The first is that in matters of domestic politics, the general rule is a free-for-all in which there is little loyalty and even less stability. Israeli politicians tend to dislike each other with an unusual vehemence. There is a constant struggle to reach the top of the greasy poll. Few leaders have been able to count for very long on the support of political allies, whether they are in the same party or part of a coalition.

The second characteristic however is the more important. It is that whatever the personal differences, the underlying agenda is never in doubt: to create a stronger and greater Israel.

Sure there are “liberals” such as Amram Mitzna, Sharon’s current Labor opponent, and Ehud Barak his predecessor, who talk about land for peace and a just settlement for the Palestinians. But history must judge the sincerity of these people. And history may very well conclude that they are merely the internationally acceptable face of Zionism, part of a long drawn- out good cop, bad cop routine, designed to defuse world impatience before permitting another outspoken hawk to return to power and resume the racist agenda, the conclusion of which will see the Palestinian people being thrown out of the rest of their land.

Zionism has clambered up relentlessly from one political ledge to another. The greatest of these perches was undoubtedly the Camp David Agreement, which led to the final recognition by the Arab world of Israel’s right to exist. This has been used as a launch pad to swoop down on the Palestinians still living in the territory which Zionism has always claimed as its own. Just as Hitler set out his own terrible agenda in Mein Kampf in 1924, nine years before the Nazis seized power, so the plan for a greater Israel was written into Theodor Herzl’s “Jewish State” published way back in 1896.

The neat trick that Israeli leaders have always managed is to wear the costume of a dove over their hawk’s plumage, whenever it seems necessary to assuage outside opinion. It appears that Ariel Sharon’s little bit of dishonesty has damaged his party’s overwhelming lead in the polls and there now seems an outside chance that Labor could win. Were this the case, the upset would be scarcely credible. Why should Israeli voters, who days ago were rallying around Sharon, their uncompromising strong man, who promised them even greater provocative suppression of the Palestinians, suddenly desert him for a so-called “peace” party, just because he was caught dipping his hand in the traditional cookie jar of international Zionist support? It doesn’t make sense.

Pushing the no-win situation

Jordan Times, 1/12/03

THE INTERNATIONAL community got a preview of what to expect on Jan. 27 when Chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix is to submit his report on Iraq's compliance with UN Security Council Resolution 1441. On Friday, in an interim report, Blix summed up the situation by saying that while there was no “smoking gun,” there was “no guarantee that prohibited stocks or activities could not exist at other sites.”

The US reaction to his report was pointed. Washington's ambassador to the UN said Iraq has to admit that it had weapons of mass destruction and that it maintains them till today. The ambassador went on to say that “anything less is not cooperation and will constitute further material breach.” France and Britain also thought that the ongoing weapons inspections must continue, but they both called for the inspectors to be granted more time and space to do their job. Both thought that Iraq must supply the needed incriminating evidence on its weapons programmes.

All these reactions give the impression that the accused, Iraq, is obligated to submit incriminating evidence or else it will be found in default and guilty as charged. True the UN weapons inspection process is not being conducted within the confines of a court of justice, it is nevertheless disturbing to note that the major players on the UN Security Council put the onus for finding incriminating evidence on the Iraqi regime itself. A more sensible way to determine the guilt or innocence of Baghdad is to have the US share its intelligence information, if any, with the UN inspectors. Since some members of the Security Council feel sure that Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction, the onus is on them to vindicate this view. There is at least a hypothetical possibility that Iraq is now clean of such weapons. It is hard to understand what Iraq has to do to substantiate this presumption of innocence beyond extending unfettered access to all Iraqi sites suspected of having such arsenals.

The last straw could be over Iraq's compliance with the UN to have its scientists interviewed within or outside Iraq. Baghdad could then face a no-win situation. If it complies with these demands, it risks undermining its national security and creating a new and dangerous precedent. If it does not, it could stand accused of committing a material breach of Resolution 1441. More troubled waters lie ahead for the world as a crisis could arise over the questioning of Iraqi scientists outside their own country. Against this backdrop, the momentum for war grows.

The fateful Jan. 28

By Musa Keilani

Jordan Times, 1/12/03

HOW ARE the Palestinians and the Arabs affected by the sudden setback Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon suffered in his reelection bid, with allegations of corruption gnawing at his chances on Jan. 28?

For one thing, Palestinians and Arabs would heave a sigh of relief if Sharon lost his bid for a new mandate as prime minister and would welcome Labour Party leader Amram Mitzna in his place if only because it might signal an end to Israel's military brutality against the Palestinians.

It is a different question, though, whether Mitzna's victory would lead to negotiations that would aim at a just and fair peace between the two sides. Could Mitzna really swing the scene around to the point where Israel would recognise the legitimate rights of the Palestinians and allow them to establish an independent state with Arab East Jerusalem as its capital? For one thing, Mitzna's Labour Party has to secure at least a simple majority in the 120-member Knesset in order for him to have the legislative clout necessary to endorse a peace agreement that would meet the demands of the Palestinians; that is, if he lives up to his election promises and means it when he says he favours an independent Palestinian state. But a simple majority in the Knesset is a pipe dream for Labour, despite Sharon's Likud setbacks.

Indeed, Likud is deemed to lose dramatically in the elections due to allegations of corruption against Sharon's son and another scandal of vote buying in party primaries that saw the prime minister beating formidable Benjamin Netanyahu, to gain the party ticket for premiership.

Would the Likud camp think that Sharon is turning out to be a liability for the party and seek to change the line-up for the elections? It would seem impossible, since party regulations do not permit that. As such, Sharon will remain very much at the helm of the party at the time of elections.

What is uncertain at this moment is whether Sharon will be able to prove to his electorate that he was not involved in corruption. If indeed he manages to do that, then we could forget about peace for the foreseeable future, since his party will gain more than a simple majority in the elections and have its way without challenge.

From the look of things, it seems that Sharon would need a miracle to prove his innocence, if indeed he is innocent, since his South African friend admitted that he had indeed given $1.5 million to Sharon's son, in addition to the millions he had earlier pocketed through Rabbi Yechiel Eckstein from the American Unification Church, known as the Moonies of the Rev. Sung Myung Moon. The electorate would not care for what purpose the money was spent; all that would matter to a majority of the voters would be that Sharon was somehow a beneficiary of the money and this is enough to erode his election prospects.

Would the same voters who might not support Sharon in the race of premiership elect his Likud as the dominant party in the Knesset? If that happens — meaning that Sharon suffers personally in the elections and his party lives true to earlier opinion poll findings that it would secure an almost-simple majority — then Mitzna will be saddled with an opposition-dominated parliament while he is voted in as premier. This would make his task all the more difficult because he would be left with no choice but to bring in Likud into a coalition government by virtue of the number of seats it wins in the elections.

Sharon did suffer an additional setback when his outburst at Mitzna and other political rivals, at a news conference, was deemed by a judge overseeing the electoral procedures as running foul of broadcast regulations. What irked the judge was Sharon's charges that Labour and its supporters had, for political motives, spread “vicious gossip” about him, his family and the Likud.

Sharon's denials of any wrongdoing and insisting that his son had documents to prove that his father was not involved in the $1.5 million “loan” have failed to convince the Israeli public. Opinion polls show Likud losing support. Before the scandal hit the headlines, Likud was supposed to garner 41 seats in the Knesset and poised to gather more in the days ahead if there were to be more Palestinian attacks against Israelis.

The Israelis seem to have favoured Sharon for his “tough” approach to Palestinian resistance and more attacks would have strengthened Sharon, if only because he was seen — from an Israeli perspective — as the best Israeli leader to deal with the Palestinians with an iron fist.

In the meantime, the controversy has helped Sharon to ward off British pressure to lift a ban on Palestinians who wish to attend a meeting in London hosted by British Prime Minister Tony Blair. The British ambassador to Israel was kept waiting and was barred from delivering a letter from Blair to Sharon urging him to allow the Palestinian delegation to attend the peace conference in London.

Ambassador Sherard Cowper-Coles was first expected to meet Sharon on Wednesday, but had still failed to secure a meeting by Friday. Indeed, that is interpreted as a signal of the cool relations between the two sides after Blair met Mitzna in London but declined to meet Netanayhu, Sharon's foreign minister.

How much hope could we pin on the London conference being successful in devising a formula to break the Israeli-Palestinian deadlock? Actually very little. Israel has not been invited to the London meeting and it was doubtful that other invitees from the United States, the United Nations, Russia, the European Union, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan would attend.

There is Arab suspicion that the London meeting is a smoke screen engineered by the US to send a message to the Arabs that Washington was indeed working on a parallel track to solve the Palestinian problem as it prepares to launch war on Iraq. Blair is the ideal European ally to undertake that mission for US President George W. Bush. As such, there is not much lost anyway, even if the meetings were cancelled. What matters to us at this juncture is whether Sharon wins reelection and with what majority if he does beat the new odds.

We could only hope that the Israeli public would see the reality that Sharon's policies only expose them to more dangers and insecurity, since he is going in the wrong direction. Instead of accepting that Israel's security does not come without granting the same security to the Palestinians, he is on a course of bulldozing run against the Palestinians. Let us hope that this run will be checked on Jan. 28.

Do they really hate the West?

By Rob Asghar

Jordan Times, 1/12/03

LOS ANGELES — Thousands of Pakistanis chanted “Down with America” last week in the wild, woolly and somewhat insane frontier town of Peshawar. Is this further evidence that Muslims “hate” the United States and the West?

The answer is mixed.

First, one should point out that, on the teeming streets of major Pakistani cities, the presence of a few thousand angry people is less of a political statement than a coincidence. In the capital city of Islamabad, only a few hundred protesters bothered to report for duty.

Second, several million Muslims of foreign descent live in the United States, England and other Western nations, call them home, and have no intention of going back. They often come for an education and a head start in a career, and find themselves being “infected by the Western bug”, coming to appreciate the West's unique blend of freedom, stability, openness, tolerance and opportunity. The American brand of Islam, in particular, is vastly different from that seen in a Peshawar neighbourhood. Many of these American Muslims proselytise not to send converts to Afghan training camps but simply to help others live lives of moral order.

Third, many of these Muslims would want nothing more than to bring many of their kin here to join in the fun. Yet, many Muslims around the world do feel antipathy towards aspects of the West. It ranges from exasperation with Western entertainment to fear of Western morals to knee-jerk voting against Republicans to the full fury of a small cut of the Muslim population. The US government and media have so far failed to understand this spectrum of negativity.

Muslims are indeed jealous of American love for Israel and are flummoxed and polarised by it. Many puzzle over how Israel's friends and supporters can lobby so effectively for aid, loans and noninterference in settlement policies that the US opposes. They hear that “Israel is an American friend” and they wonder why oil-rich Muslim nations couldn't be seen as more attractive friends. They hear that “Israel is a democracy” and wonder why that has so little to do with American geopolitical strategy in other parts of the world. They hear that “Israel shares our Judeo-Christian values” and wonder why the US media opt not to show the destruction of Palestinian houses that preoccupies Al Jazeera network.

And they, of course, view matters still more cynically when North Korea flashes a far more advanced nuclear capability than Iraq, yet is demonised far less by the American right-wing.

The irony is that American Muslims and American political conservatives are natural allies, especially in the area of personal and social morality. But such an alliance won't happen for many moons, because conservatives have been most enthusiastic in criticising Islam and maximising the perceived threat of the Islamic world.

Want to irritate many American Muslims who are deeply devoted both to their faith and to their adopted American homeland? Switch channels even briefly to the rabidly conservative Fox News, and listen to their outcry. Fewer howls of protest would meet an airing of the Playboy Channel than the sight of a Rumsfeldite hawk spinning scenarios to humiliate the Arab population.

For its part, the Bush administration can do a few things to narrow the breach between the world's Muslims and the United States government. Bush must rely less on the Rumsfeld and Cheney wing's strident articulation of geopolitical priorities. His administration must try to do a far better job at articulating a moral and strategic basis for supporting Israel in terms that fair-minded Muslims (yes, they do exist) can respect. And the American administration must be far more sensitive to the seeming contradictions in its policies and the repercussions within Muslim communities. Doing so will not solve all the world's political problems, but may, at least, constitute a step towards controlling them.

The author is a Pakistani American writer and editor.

Some talk of peace ... Others talk of war

Gulf News, 12-01-2003

Britain has decided to go ahead with reviving the Middle East peace talks. British Prime Minister Tony Blair has invited delegates from America, Russia and the EU to talk with Palestinian representatives on determining a peaceful resolution to the strife. Blair is hoping that the talks will also include a reform agenda, paving the way for administrative and leadership changes within the Palestinian National Authority, something which has been repeatedly called for by President George W. Bush and Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon - although neither are in a position to dictate the sort of government that is in place in Palestine, or leader that should be heading the PNA.

Despite Sharon doing his best to try and disrupt the peace talks even before they have started - by preventing Palestinian negotiators from travelling to London - Britain has decided that the participation of the Palestinian officials is too important for them not to attend. So, as a compromise, it has been determined that their presence will be via a telephone conference. Not exactly an ideal way in which to interact between parties, but certainly better than nothing at all. It is anticipated that the Palestinian officials who will take part in the telephone conference will be Information Minister Yasser Abed Rabbo, Planning Minister Nabil Sha'ath and Finance Minister Salam Fayyad. These senior members of President Yasser Arafat's cabinet hopefully will be able to contribute fresh ideas and thinking to the persistent problems that are causing so much disruption in the Middle East. However, it is equally important that any proposals arrived at in the meeting should be conveyed to Arafat who is willing to accept suggestions and eager to implement them.

The London meeting will not find all the answers, but at the moment it is the only initiative going. It must be grasped with both hands.

Others talk of war

The withdrawal by North Korea from the Non-Proliferation Treaty, while "not unexpected", according to the U.S. - has sent shock waves around the world. It is not helped when such rhetoric from North Korea as being ready to "mercilessly wipe out" other nations that infringe upon its sovereignty. Compounded with the statement from Pyongyang that it might end its self-imposed moratorium on missile testing, it does appear that the situation in the Korean Peninsula is worsening daily.

It would be too easy to blame America for its gauche handling of the situation. But it is evident that the Bush administration has totally misread the runes and thought that bully and bluster would suffice and cower the North Koreans into submission. But that has never worked, not in any American administration; North Korea is more used to inducements not coercion. Those have worked in the past, and they are likely to work in the future as well. Instead, the Bush administration foolishly painted itself into a corner, increasing the ante, making it impossible for North Korea to do anything other than respond in kind. In an apparent climb-down, Bush said he will talk, but not negotiate; instead, he seeks an intermediary. But if Bush is not prepared to compromise it is difficult to see how any intermediary can act.

Pakistan and the U.S.: Unequal engagement
By Nasim Zehra | Gulf News, 12-01-2003
-

This is how the government of Pakistan responded when the U.S. F-16 jet fighter dropped a 500 pound bomb on Pakistan's territory - silence, followed by one contradictory statement after another and finally an "it has all been taken care of."

The United States, whose officer radioed for air power to drop a bomb on Pakistani territory, responded completely differently. First a verbal offensive through a mid-level Bagram-based U.S. spokeswoman was launched who categorically stated that the U.S. government retains the right for hot pursuit.

As was to be expected, the United States government was out with their version of the incident first. Marked by the chronic problem of lack of coordination among national security institutions, principally the armed forces, the foreign office and the ministry of interior, different ministries of the government of Pakistan sent out different signals. A Pakistani spokesman was instructed to even refute the fact that Pakistani territory was bombed; a fact which contrasted with the U.S. announcement that a madrassa on Pakistani territory was in fact pounded.

The Pakistan government's approach to information management, a critical tool for policy formulation, conduct and projection, is very hard to understand. Holding back information unless pushed to bring it in the open, is a principle it follows. For example it was only 48 hours after the President General Parvez Musharraf spoke to the U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell about the Durand Line incident that the contents of the conversation were made public. The decision to make it public was made after the Pakistani press began carrying reports on the tension the incident had created in the mid-level Pakistan-U.S. ranks involved in the anti-terrorist operations.

Even then only partial information was conveyed to the Pakistani public. Reportedly Powell told the President that the statement by the U.S. defence department spokesperson regarding the right for hot pursuit was highly regrettable.

In fact, issues of success and failure and of inter-institutional rivalry linked to the anti-terrorist operation do exist within the U.S. government. Of the 60 top Al Qaida and Taliban wanted men, only two have so far been apprehended. There is also dissatisfaction within sections of the U.S. administration with the Centcom commander Tommy Franks, although as the man who will most probably lead the Iraq operation his position is secure.

But to return to the malaise that grips Pakistan, why is it that only name-calling, the anti-Pakistani blame game, and the irresponsible attacking rhetoric qualifies as headline news. Surely, the U.S., which is by far the more confident, the one with an institutionalised approach and the one that is more accountable at home launches the offensive. In Pakistan we tend to derive comfort from telephone calls from U.S. leaders, from personalised assurances, from apologies. This is an erroneous approach.

Pakistan should have demanded a public apology for the bomb attack. Private apologies do not sustain national pride nor do private assurances enhance national dignity.

"You Pakistanis should learn to stand up and say no, you should say thus far and no more. You reduce yourselves to a back pocket wallet of the Americans, they reach out for you when they need you, always on their own terms," said a former senior State Department official and a senior U.S. Congressional researcher, spelling out the problem with Pakistan in its relationship with the U.S.

These are our follies because they take us towards a derivative mind-set, one that makes us believe that we can guarantee Pakistan's security, to some extent, by playing the role of a loyal partner of the U.S. After all the support that Pakistan has extended to the United States at this juncture is unprecedented in the history of Pakistan-U.S. relations. Indeed even when Pakistan was labelled the most 'allied ally', and 'the clients of the U.S.' in the Fifties, when Pakistan was a signatory of the anti-Communist Seato and Cento Pacts , not one-tenth of this active support to the U.S. was given.

Today Pakistan has made its personnel, air, land and sea available for the U.S. operation. Around 70,000 Pakistani troops have been deployed in the tribal belt to facilitate the U.S.-led operation to capture Al Qaida and Taliban men. Today U.S. forces - almost 800 troops - are located in four Pakistani bases including Jacobabad and Pasni. Over 443 people, mostly foreigners have been captured from Pakistani territory. Afghan-based missile-armed UAVs enter into Pakistani territory to monitor supposedly Al Qaida movement and to target potential 'enemy.'

Ironically the quid pro quo was more solid than what it is now. It was the era of the Cold War and Pakistan did get military and economic support. Let us see what all was denied to us in this round. Pakistan is not a trusted ally hence no military sales can therefore be made to Pakistan. General Musharraf was advised to not even raise this issue with the U.S. President; U.S. loans were not written off and market access to the Pakistani textile industry was not granted. These denials contrasted with the confidence certain key officials in Pakistan had regarding the quid pro quo that Washington would deliver once Pakistan joins Washington's anti-terrorist coalition.

The issue is not of engaging with the U.S. That was correct. Only Pakistan sold itself cheap because right from the start, its prompt agreement, in less than 24 hours, to the U.S. 'request' for military and intelligence support in the post 9/11 phase and subsequently the non-institutional approach adopted while negotiating the quid pro-quo package with the U.S., ensured that the country would subsequently be faced with today's situation.

The terms of engagement between the U.S. and Pakistan were never clearly enunciated. Yes, detailed systems of checks and control for the military aspect of the operation were put into place but was the political message of 'thus far and no further' was even given to the United States.

No, not in clear terms. In Pakistan the armed forces has remained the prime and the most powerful constituency of the U.S. For historical reasons it has been in the forefront of national security formulation. Today a well coordinated and well thought out policy for engaging with the U.S. and indeed other states is essential. It is unbecoming of an 150 million strong, nuclear-armed strategically located Pakistan to not generate the intellectual power required to formulate viable policies. Neither name calling the U.S. nor a military-oriented uni-dimensional relationship with it will help promote Pakistan's security on a durable basis.

There are after all national security issues relating to intangibles like national sovereignty, dignity and honour are important. Events in Lahore these last eight weeks with Dr. Amir Aziz and his family members picked up by FBI in a dacoit-kind of operation are a case in point.

There are compulsions of cooperation that a state may have to opt for at a given time but never at the cost of rule of law or at the cost of undermining the security of its own citizens. We must examine the contrasting approach that the U.S. has adopted; on the one hand it is making its own domestic laws so stringent, almost humiliating for foreigners, now including our own citizens on INS registration. This the U.S. is doing, it believes, to enhance the security of its own citizens.

Meanwhile in Pakistan the extension of ensuring security for U.S. citizens translates into lack of security, lack of dignity and psychological vulnerability of Pakistani citizens. There are issues admittedly related to international security matters that have spun off from the anti-Soviet covert-overt war that was authored and executed by U.S.-led Western powers and Pakistan. However there has to be a correct, mutually acceptable way of dealing with the problem. That unilateralism of the U.S. must extend to the lack of dignity, of human rights of Pakistanis as well as undermining of national dignity and sovereignty that should not be acceptable. A proper system should be put in place to conduct such operations. Only then, can a mutually beneficial arrangement grow into a healthy and enduring alliance.

This perspective is by Nasim Zehra, an analyst on Pakistani affairs.

http://www.aljazeerah.info

Opinions expressed in various sections are the sole responsibility of their authors and they may not represent Al-Jazeerah's.