Commenting upon a sessions court judgement sentencing two Christians to death for alleged blasphemy last January, the Prime Minister noted that “the decision had come at a most unfortunate time”. The implication was clear: the judgement could erode her efforts to sell Pakistan as a “moderate Muslim state” with whom the United States could and should do business.
Ms Bhutto’s unwitting statement, unfortunately, focused on the “timing” of the judgement rather than on its intrinsic defects. The embarrassing haste with which the two Christians were acquitted and flown to asylum in Germany only served to confirm suspicions that “Benazir Bhutto is bending over backwards to appease the United States”.
Ms Bhutto’s speedy extradition of Ramzi Yusuf Ahmad to Washington has evoked much the same sort of angry “nationalist” reaction at home. Later, people were right to say: “It has taken the killings of two American officials in Karachi to spur the government into action, despite the fact that hundreds of Pakistani lives have been lost to terrorism since Ms Bhutto came to power sixteen months ago”.
In all these cases, the merit of Ms Bhutto’s policies has not been in doubt. It is their “pro-US” context, however, which is becoming problematic in a country obsessed with false notions of “self-esteem” and “pride” which sees the US as a “hypocritical superpower” which has “betrayed” a friend of long standing.
This is something Ms Bhutto should remember during her US trip. Every gesture she makes to the US administration in Washington, every word she utters before the American press in New York or Los Angeles, is going to be scrutinised by her critics at home for further evidence of “appeasement” to a “bully”.
Of course, Ms Bhutto is not going to “appease” Washington. Our stand on Kashmir, nuclear proliferation and the Pressler amendment has withstood the test of time and been forcefully vindicated. We have made several important unilateral concessions which cry out for commendation: Pakistan’s nuclear programme remains “frozen” since 1989 (before the US aid cut-off) despite the fact that India has continued to enrich fissile material without restraint; Pakistan has not stockpiled or deployed missiles against India despite New Delhi’s determination to go ahead with the serial production (read “deployment”) of the Pakistan-specific Prithvi; We have always been ready to talk to India about Kashmir, with or without international mediation, but India remains intransigent. India has a serious human rights problem, we don’t. We have restored democracy, we have liberalised the economy, we are acting against drug mafias and extremists and we are not, repeat not, exporting “terrorism” of any kind. We seek an honourable and equitable relationship with the US based on our rights rather than as a measure of undue “generosity” on the part of our friends.
Ms Bhutto will draw the attention of her hosts to the dangerous crossroads at which Pakistan has arrived in the post cold war era. The country is burdened by the divisive legacies of the past when it acted as America’s “front-line” state against communism. While we accept our own culpability for the mess in which we find ourselves, Ms Bhutto must insist that the United States accept responsibility for its past and present role in shaping our predicament.
The US is no longer insisting that Pakistan should unilaterally roll back its nuclear programme or open up Kahuta for inspection. We have spurned their inducements and shrugged off the threats because national security is not negotiable. Now Washington is asking Pakistan for a formal statement foregoing our right to deploy missiles irrespective of New Delhi’s plans.
Naturally, Ms Bhutto will stress that this is not possible. If India goes ahead with the Prithvi, Pakistan will be compelled to fashion an appropriate response. Indeed, if India refuses to stop stock-piling fissile material for atomic warheads, the Pakistani government could come under severe pressure from the public to “unfreeze” the country’s nuclear programme.
Pakistan’s point of view on all these issues is rational and responsible. The US administration now accepts this as a self-evident truth. But Congress has still not woken up to the fact that the Pressler amendment, far from achieving its objectives, has made non-proliferation more difficult in South Asia. That will take some more time.
Therefore we must not expect Ms Bhutto to be escorted back to Islamabad by a fleet of F-16s bearing the Pakistan colours. Washington will help us attract US foreign investment. In due course, the Pentagon will probably find a way to return some military equipment sent for repair. Maybe some military spares might also materialise. The Americans are also ready to sell the F-16s to another country, if one can be found, and return our money. This is a far cry from the sort of demands made by Mr Strobe Talbott when he visited Pakistan over a year ago.
If Ms Bhutto’s trip compels a genuine rethink on Capitol Hill and a fair and equitable relationship with the United States flows from it in time to come, it will have served its purpose admirably. As long as she remains attuned to domestic sensitivities during her trip abroad, there can be no better ambassador than Benazir Bhutto to put forward our case in Washington.