They say spring fever is contagious. And from Pakistan’s view, President Bill Clinton appears to be the latest casualty. Why else, while in New Delhi, would he have said everything the Indians have desperately wanted him to say for a long time? And they have succeeded just months before the President leaves the White House. The fever has really come home and the sufferings of those in Islamabad have to be seen to be believed.
Everyone knew it was coming, but it was more convenient to just look the other way. Even the "liberal, moderate Islamic state" of Bangladesh fared better than a 50-year-old ally, and all Pakistani experts could say was that the Clinton visit was a befitting tribute to Bangladesh’s progress. But the unkindest cut of all was Clinton’s outright charge that elements within the Pakistani government were supporting those engaged in violence in Kashmir. Chief executive Gen Pervez Musharraf seemed to sense there was no escaping this American, who is, with each passing day, putting the blame for Kargil squarely on his shoulders. "I don’t accept that the Pakistan government or any part of it has ever been involved in violence in Kashmir," he shot back. The massacre of 36 Sikhs in Kashmir had brought a subtle change: ‘terrorism’ was being replaced with ‘violence’.
The message Clinton promises to deliver on arrival in Islamabad is that Pakistan must exercise restraint and not allow "third party" violence in Kashmir, that is, violence perpetrated by elements who are "not from there", but also not "necessarily elements from the Pakistan government". The implied message, whether delivered bluntly or not in Islamabad, being that if such violence isn’t curbed, "Washington may well look the other way if India initiates a limited war." That’s how the English daily The Nation viewed these latest combined threats emanating from Washington and New Delhi.
The "vision statement", particularly, is being viewed as a dangerous development in Islamabad. Experts feel this may be an attempt to isolate Pakistan politically and economically. "This is a new kind of framework document we are witnessing-we saw something similar between New Delhi and Moscow in the past. But this is a new dimension and, in a way, the ‘vision statement’ marks the beginning of a new era of strategic partnership. However, this isn’t a sudden development but culmination of a process nurtured for over a decade which began with the demise of the Soviet Union and the reconstruction of the Indian economy," says former foreign secretary Tanveer Ahmed Khan. Khan, like many others, also feels the other important development is Washington’s attempt to create a new balance of power wherein India has been cast in a China-balancing role. While many experts are renewing calls for a review and revamping of Islamabad’s foreign policy, others like former ISI chief Gen (retd) Hamid Gul do not see New Delhi ready to play such a part. "India is not cut out or equipped for the role the US would like it to play in the region. When they cannot handle the Kashmiris and several other separatist movements in their own country, what role can they play in the region?" he asks.
Another area of worry is the omission-in Prime Minister Vajpayee’s welcome address-of any reference to the export of nuclear technology. "Previously, it was under US pressure that India had to reverse plans to export a reactor. Are opportunities to export nuclear technology now open? This is a point we would like to make," says Najmuddin Sheikh, another former foreign secretary. If there is an area where Islamabad draws some comfort, it’s the fact that despite qualitative changes between the two largest democracies, no headway appears to have been made on the issue of non-proliferation. "Clinton has sent a message to Vajpayee by asking certain questions. He asked whether there can be any development in India when so much is spent on conventional and nuclear weapons and whether New Delhi felt its security was enhanced after the nuclear tests. The two countries will continue a dialogue on the issue, but the onus of the answer and a final decision has been put on New Delhi," observes Sheikh.
Meanwhile, while Clinton gets a chance to sniff the roses at the Aiwan-e-Sadr (presidential palace) he should leave content in the knowledge that Washington’s loyal subjects are keeping traditions alive. Unlike India and Bangladesh where elements from the civil society took to the streets to denounce American imperialism, Pakistani politicians and the military leadership continue to demand remedies from Uncle Sam. Old habits really do die hard.
Tags