In the immediate aftermath of Faisal Shahzad’s arrest in the US, the Obama administration acted to reassure Pakistan that the event was not automatically going to strain ties between the two countries. However, there appears to have been some change in the tone and tenor of comments by American officials over the past couple of days.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has warned that there will be “severe consequences” for Pakistan if a successful terrorist attack in the US is traced to this country. Meanwhile, unnamed officials have voiced fresh concerns about militancy in Pakistan to The New York Times and The Washington Post. What are we to make of this? First of all, Ms Clinton’s comments are unfortunate and will rekindle suspicions here that America is no real friend of Pakistan. The Shahzad case is cause for serious concern and the possible nexus between American citizenship holders and Pakistan-based militants needs to be investigated thoroughly. But why is America’s top diplomat venturing into hypotheticals and suggesting an intention to visit harm on Pakistan as some sort of possible retribution? It is odd, to say the least. Perhaps Ms Clinton was speaking more to the domestic American audience, some members of which have been critical of the Obama administration’s being ‘soft’ on Pakistan. But her words were heard in Pakistan too and they would not have gone down well.
Curiously, in more or less the same time frame, Gen Petraeus, the head of the US military in this region, spoke to the Council of Foreign Relations after returning from a trip to Pakistan and struck a far more conciliatory tone. When asked if the timing of the Shahzad plot would adversely impact military-to-military cooperation between the US and Pakistan, Gen Petraeus replied: “The attempted New York attack in Times Square, if anything, may strengthen the relationship. In fact, the Pakistani intelligence services, or its police, quite quickly carried out some operations related to this.” So is this a case of the good-cop, bad-cop routine once again being rolled out to get Pakistan to ‘do more’ in the fight against militancy?
If so, it is a bad idea. The Pakistani state is unlikely to respond to threats or inducements on this count. Assistance in relation to the Shahzad case is, both sides appear to agree, being extended by Pakistan. There appears to be some friction, but disagreements are very likely in the course of such investigations. Everything is not a conspiracy; the American side, after all, almost let Shahzad fly out of America. However, the Times Square plot must not be used as a stick to beat Pakistan with. It is the common enemy — the militants — that need to be fought.
No comments:
Post a Comment