A long-term U.S.-Pak. cooperation?

By Sridhar Krishnaswami

WASHINGTON, SEPT. 20. As the United States and Pakistan intensify their exchange of views on terrorism in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks, there is the conviction that this cooperation is going to be on a sustained basis, and over a very long period.

Much of this has to do with the Bush administration's repeated statements that the fight against the scourge will be multi- faceted and prolonged. As it prepares for this war, the Pentagon and intelligence agencies are making it known that it will be on different fronts.

Cruise missiles and B-52 Bombers may be used; ground troops could be involved and a paradrop action or even sections of the elite commando units sneaking up attacks against identified targets cannot be ruled out. And Washington-Islamabad dialogue at this time is said to cover all of this.

Some analysts and diplomats dealing with and interested in South Asia see post-terrorist attacks against the U.S. as an opportunity for a regional response to terrorism. In the present context for South Asia, there is the international and regional components; and the best scenario would be for the two to go hand-in-hand. But Pakistan, for instance, will insist on making a distinction between Afghanistan and Kashmir.

There is the perception that there is a chance for some `enlightened leadership' in South Asia, a chance for the region's leaders to re-focus on the whole issue of terrorism and in the process come to some kind of a coherent and meaningful policy approach. There is also the view that this cannot come about in the absence of a willingness to deal with the issues. Talking only about ways to `de-fang' extremism alone will not work, it is maintained.

Much has been talked about and written about the kind of `deal' that Pakistan has supposedly insisted in return for cooperation with the U.S. The Bush administration has denied this `deal'; and on Tuesday, the Indian Ambassador, Mr. Lalit Mansingh, told reporters that the White House had assured him of no such `deal', that it was `totally baseless and untrue'.

Leave aside the fact that Washington is a town that thrives on `deals'. In the context of Pakistan and the U.S. what has to be remembered is that the so-called deal is the expectation of Islamabad in the longer term. No one is looking or talking about the short-term benefits of a `deal'. There are none and it is bizzare to even expect something along these lines.

But the long-term benefits and pay-offs have even been talked about publicly by senior functionaries of the Bush administration. And it has been mainly confined to the realm of economics, loan and debt write-offs and increased developmental assistance in the longer term. After all, there is the considered view in this town that if nations are going to be punished for harbouring terrorists, they would have to be helped or supported for fighting terrorism.

In reaching out for a cooperative framework with Pakistan, the Bush administration understands the political compulsions, the difficulties and the complexities. For instance, Washington realises that some in Pakistan see a tendency of the U.S. to turn away from a close ally after a job has been done - the latest instance being Afghanistan, the Soviet invasion and the aftermath.

Domestically, the Bush administration faces another difficulty as well. After ranting and raving about military dictatorships, restoration of democracy and linking lifting of some sanctions to a return to the democratic fold, Washington is realising that only a military regime can deliver the goods right now in Afghanistan. And this will raise more than just a few eyebrows in the political establishment here.

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Opinion
Previous : A defining moment for the subcontinent?