The arrest in Rawalpindi last week of Khalid Sheikh Mohammad, the world’s most wanted Al-Qaeda terrorist after Osama Bin Laden, couldn’t have been better timed from Islamabad’s point of view. It quickly shifted the spotlight from allegations against Pakistan that it had transferred nuclear technology to North Korea in the mid 1990s to its current “unstinting” support for the US in the war against terrorism. “Fantastic”, said President George W Bush.
To drive the point home, the ISI held an unprecedented press briefing for foreign journalists in Islamabad and boasted how the operation to net Khalid Sheikh Mohammad had been executed by the Pakistanis without any significant help from the FBI. Of course, it’s a different matter that the journalists came away convinced that Khalid Sheikh Mohammad had been caught earlier than claimed by the government and that his formal arrest and gifting over to Washington was timed to deflect or offset the US pressure on Pakistan to support the proposed Anglo-American draft resolution paving the way for a war against Iraq.
The Americans have leaned on Pakistan because its vote could critically tilt the balance in the UNSC. President Bush has called General Musharraf and General Tommy Franks and Christina Rocca have visited Islamabd. American officials have “leaked” statements that Pakistan’s refusal to support the resolution would be construed as an “unfriendly” act by Washington. It has also been pointed out that the rewards of allying with America — so far, over $1 billion in aid, renewed IMF and World Bank soft lending, international debt-rescheduling of over $12 billion and the promise to write off $1 billion in US debt – could now conceivably be at risk. The gist of the message was conveyed recently by a smiling American think-tank “expert” on CNN: “General Musharraf has to decide whether France can keep him in power”.
Now we have been formally told by the prime minister, Zafarullah Khan Jamali, that it would be “very difficult for Pakistan to support war against Iraq”. Earlier, General Pervez Musharraf had told the American president that his “hands are full”, a reference to the public and institutional pressure that has been building up on him by his pro-America stance. An unprecedented wave of anti-Americanism is sweeping the country. Some of the biggest-ever anti-US, anti-war rallies have been held in the country and more are planned. Much the same anti-US sentiment prevails across the benches in parliament. Editorials continue to flay America’s pre-emption doctrine for “attacking Islam”. Pakistanis are also afraid that “after Iraq, Pakistan might be the next American target” because it too has weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons, which rightwing American experts fear could fall into the “wrong” hands.
Some Pakistanis argue that, since war is inevitable, Pakistan should support the US in exchange for more “rewards”. But most are against the motion for two main reasons. The idea that Pakistan might become the only Muslim nation in the world voting for a war against another Muslim country is generally unpalatable. Then there is the fear that if Pakistan were to support the doctrine of pre-emption, it could become its victim if arch-enemy India, with whom relations remain hostile, were emboldened to try and cut Pakistan down to size. These arguments are weighty.
Washington had asked Pakistan to make up its mind and let it know its decision in advance so that it could plan accordingly. The answer was first given by Mr Jamali in parliament last Monday when he said that “Pakistan is against war and it will not support any war intentions against Iraq”. Until now, Pakistan has argued that the UN inspectors must be given more time to determine whether or not Iraq is complying with resolution 1441. Therefore it appeared likely that Pakistan’s government would abstain from a yes or no vote rather than risk the ire of the Pakistani public or the US. Indeed, General Musharraf was hoping that both sides would “understand” his compulsions to clutch at pragmatism in the “national interest”. But chances are that a reprieve, however temporary, may now be in the offing.
A flurry of last-minute negotiations is in evidence at the UNSC. Two ideas are being flogged to bridge the gap dividing the Big Five. First, delaying the deadlines for all ultimatums to Iraq. Second, creation of a set of “guideposts” that Iraq must traverse in the interim one by one. Hans Blix has drawn up a list of 29 “clusters” of unresolved issues for Iraq to resolve. If Iraq fails to do so demonstrably under a strong force of inspectors, then “serious consequences” could accrue. A Russian proposal is also on the table which would place UN troops on Iraqi territory to enforce inspections and disarmament. And the “six undecideds” have apparently proposed extending the deadline for 45 days. This strategy, which has the support of almost all except the minority “coalition of the willing”, is aimed at delaying the onset of war and finding the space to disarm Iraq and get rid of Saddam Hussain by other means.
Under the circumstances, and irrespective of whether or not war is inevitable, Pakistan has done well not to take a hasty decision in favour of the war-mongers.