“We’ve made it very clear that, if—heaven forbid—an attack like this (Times Square) that we can trace back to Pakistan, were to have been successful, there would be very severe consequences.”
—US Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton
“If Pakistan fails to take appropriate action against the Taliban, the United States will.”
—US Attorney-General Eric Holder
As senior American officials bristled at the audacious attempt of Faisal Shahzad to plant a bomb at the Times Square in New York, the Senate in Pakistan vented its fury against the threatening remarks from those American leaders whom the political class here considers friends. Many Pakistani senators thought the United States wants to enslave Pakistan. A few went in complete denial mode to describe the Times Square incident as a drama staged quite like 9/11 (remember the conspiracy theory?) to discredit their country, even perhaps to pave the way for its invasion.
But the more saner members of the Senate ascribed America’s peremptory behaviour post-Times Square to Pakistan’s faulty foreign policy. As Pakistan Muslim League (Nawaz) leader Zafar Ali Shah said, “It’s strange that US officials are threatening an independent Pakistan, which has been a frontline state in the war on terror. This has exposed our failed foreign policy.” Pakistan Muslim League (Q) leader Haroon Akhtar added, “They have no right to warn us; instead we should be warning them as Faisal Shahzad is a US citizen.”
The debate in the Senate brought to the fore the dichotomy prevailing in Pakistan—the government considers America its friend, condones the threatening remarks of its officials, but those outside the power matrix rail at the US and detest it. Dr Shireen Mazari, editor, The Nation, told Outlook, “The US intends to target Pakistan far beyond the FATA region and certainly with more than just drones. It is the military leadership’s strange silence to these threats that is unnerving. Is the military capable of taking action only against its own tribal people?”
The anger against the US cuts across all class and regional divides. An exclusive Al-Jazeera survey conducted by Gallup Pakistan in all four provinces shows that 59 per cent of Pakistanis consider the US the greatest threat to the country, followed by India (18 per cent) and the Taliban (11 per cent). And to think the US described Pakistan as the most favoured non-Nato ally at the time it joined the US war against terror!
To begin with, the Pakistani anger against the US is part of the worldwide Muslim rage against the superpower. Says historian Dushka Syed, “Not just in Pakistan, but all over the Muslim world, anti-US feelings are on the rise. They see the US policies as being prejudiced to Muslims. It started with Palestine, and multiplied manifold after the first Iraq war and the one in Afghanistan. The last war in Iraq was the turning point for the Muslim world.”
The American invasion of Afghanistan alienated the Pakistanis because of the strong ethnic ties between the Pashtuns living on both sides of the Durand Line. This incited the tribals in Pakistan to come to the rescue of their fleeing brethren from Afghanistan. And as the war on terror expanded to encompass tribal areas in Pakistan, its citizens experienced the blowback—drone attacks and suicide bombings directed against the government supporting America. Worryingly, the anger against America could explode as the war in Afghanistan reaches a decisive stage, and official Pakistan becomes extremely pro-active in protecting its interests. In many ways, Hillary Clinton’s remarks, perceived as humiliating, alienate even those who believe terror groups must be rooted out. Consequently, the support for America is shrinking.
But this anger against America has not arisen suddenly post-9/11. Since the Pakistanis have been wedded to the idea of Palestine, the “unqualified support all US administrations” have extended to Israel has always roiled emotions here, says former diplomat Asif Ezdi. What was subterranean earlier has now come to the surface because of the Pakistanis’ own experiences post-9/11. Indeed, Washington’s policies in the Muslim world are bound to have an echo in Pakistan. Even now, says Ezdi, “Washington’s opposition to the Iranian nuclear programme while condoning the acquisition of nuclear weapons by Israel” is stoking anti-US sentiments.
As Pakistanis, like Muslims elsewhere, were stunned at the West’s partiality towards Israel, their ambivalence towards Washington turned to distrust in 1965. It was the year in which the US decided to withhold supply of military hardware to the Pakistan army as it was arrayed against India in the battlefield. Says Gen (retd) Talat Masood, “That hit our army very badly.” But the fault is not America’s entirely. Pakistan, says Masood, uses the US to counter India, and feels it is entitled to American assistance. However, it fails to realise that it must repay its debt. Masood explains, “Look at the Jamaat-e-Islami, it has always exploited anti-US sentiments and cashed in on them.”
Most agree that America’s betrayal of Pakistan didn’t end in 1965; it did not intervene in 1971 either, when Pakistan was dismembered. It became indifferent to Pakistan following the withdrawal of the Soviet army from Afghanistan, leaving Islamabad to tackle the problems that were left behind—Afghan refugees, drugs and gun-running.
Ezdi says the Pakistanis’ distrust of the Americans can also be traced back to their policy of supporting military dictators to further Washington’s interest. They bolstered President Zia-ul-Haq even though he adopted the policy of Islamising Pakistan. The affair with Pervez Musharraf is public knowledge. Essentially ruler-specific, America has ignored the people at large. Though the Obama administration has realised belatedly the importance of courting the people, it’s still too early for this change to translate into economic dividends at the grassroots.
Worse, successive governments haven’t tried to explain to the people the importance of aligning with America. Perhaps it’s an onerous task no one is willing to undertake—how does Pakistan justify its alliance with America, which pursues what’s popularly seen as anti-Muslim policies? Building up over the years, discontent against America has become all too visible and audible now because of the war on terror and its blowback on Pakistan. Says Syed, “I am pro-West, but these threats of Hillary, if carried out, will ensure that under every stone there will be a Faisal Shahzad.” That cannot bode well for either the US or the world.
