Share this story!            

Editorial: Interpreting Zardari’s US visit

The reporting and opinion in Pakistan on President Asif Ali Zardari’s visit to the US present a fascinating kaleidoscope. A front page heading says: “US offers Pakistan help to protect its sovereignty” in one daily, but in another it says, “Bush skirts issue of sovereignty”. A front page comment by a correspondent in Washington says: “Bush’s words mean nothing”. And the decisive front page heading in one newspaper said: “US acknowledges Pak sovereignty”. Does this mean that we are not sure about the purpose of the visit or whether it has some objectives that have been achieved and others missed?

The TV channels are sceptical. Some are still opining the old strain that President Zardari should have “stuck” to his word and visited China before planning a trip to the UN and USA. Others want him to chide the American lion in its lair and tell the superpower that Pakistan is getting tired of its dubious ride on top of it. As a result, many citizens are ringing to express flustered views, regurgitating a negative view of the wisdom, on the part of Messrs Zardari, Gilani and Kayani, to leave Islamabad after the Marriott blast.

As expected, the statement made by the information minister, Ms Sherry Rehman, has interpreted the “sovereignty” theme in a positive light: “President Bush has reaffirmed in his meeting with President Zardari that the US is alive to Pakistan’s sovereignty concerns and that Pakistan has reiterated its position about boots on the ground or ground operations on its territory”. Mr Zardari’s own remarks at the meeting with Mr Bush in front of the press were focused on the theme of democracy which was relied upon to touch base with Pakistan’s friends in the world in general and the US in particular. Clearly, on such occasions one doesn’t engage in political jousting even if it is emotionally quite satisfying.

The remarks made by the US Secretary of Defence, Robert Gates, get prominence here because he is supposed to have said something offensive: “The greatest threat of terrorism against the United States comes from the Tribal Areas of Pakistan”. This is also supposed to be a snub to President Zardari. But the truth is that the threat to Pakistan too is coming from the Tribal Areas. Indeed, as days pass, more and more evidence will definitely come to surface about how Al Qaeda and its local foot soldiers in Punjab and FATA planned and executed the destruction of Marriott Hotel. Why is it important for Pakistan to avoid international isolation while tackling the problem of terrorism from which it is suffering?

The first reason is its dire economic situation and its inability to generate funds for the effort needed to confront the Al Qaeda onslaught. The second is the regional odds against it because of the presence of NATO-ISAF forces in Afghanistan and the location of Al Qaeda and its affiliates in Pakistan. Therefore Pakistan’s government must make efforts to align the international opinion with it on what it thinks should be done to counter terrorism that is taking place inside Pakistan and radiating outwards into the neighbouring states. Mr Asif Zardari cannot harangue the world like the Iranian President Mr Ahmadinejad without the economic clout and revolutionary hold over its own population that Iran possesses because of its oil and gas resources and political system.

President Zardari has gone to the US primarily to attend the UN General Assembly session in New York and to take advantage of the presence of world leaders there to interact with them and present Pakistan’s point of view on terrorism and economic need. Therefore he will do what the other world leaders do: make courtesy calls on the heads of government and state present on the occasion. In most cases, of course, the discussions will not be substantive. But they will certainly help create good bilateral atmospherics for future dialogues. In much the same way, Mr Zardari’s meeting with Mr Bush was an important occasion of mutual assurance without being substantive. For us it remains important to touch base with the outgoing American administration in Washington simply because the next administration is likely to continue the same policy in Afghanistan.

Unfortunately, some Pakistani academics and journalists are inclined to use political terms quite loosely. For instance, on Tuesday, one academic used the term “unilateralism” while talking of the US policy under the umbrella of the NATO-ISAF forces. But the truth is that “unilateralism” has been applied so far in cases only where the US has invaded a country without the approval of the UN Security Council. In the same way, “going back” to the IMF by Pakistan was decried as returning to the process of accumulating a large debt. But the fact is that the IMF loans don’t increase our debt as much as debts contracted from non-IMF sources. What is fearful about the IMF is its ledger of conditionalities which strangulates the economy and increases the suffering of the common man.

This is a time for pragmatic introspection, not outraged aggression. Let us give our fledgling “democracy” a chance to grow and our dysfunctional state an ability to survive. *

Second Editorial: Marriott blast: was there an inside-informer?

The federal information minister, Ms Sherry Rehman, said in New York that the political leadership “had no plan to be present at the Marriott Hotel on the fateful day when Al Qaeda struck”. She said the speaker of the national assembly had carried out the simple routine exercise of taking a view of the rates at the hotel before deciding not to hold a programme there. The matter was not raised further when the decision was made to have the function at the PM’s house. The management of the Marriott has also denied receiving any order for booking an Iftar dinner for the political leadership of the country on the fateful day.

However, commentators have made fun of the “contradiction” between this version and the version put out by the PPP’s interior adviser, Mr Rehman Malik, that the Marriott was the target because it anticipated an Iftar dinner that was expected to take place at the hotel. Interestingly, the owner of the hotel, Mr Sadruddin Hashwani, while denying that there was any booking, has said clearly in one TV statement that “inquiries were made” from the parliament secretariat but no booking was ordered. From this we may come to either one of two conclusions. (1) Someone from within the parliament secretariat or the Islamabad establishment got to know about the initial inquiry by the NA Speaker and reported it to an Al Qaeda affiliate or sympathiser who didn’t realise or come to know that the idea of the dinner was abandoned and no booking was actually made. Or (2) The Marriott, which has been twice targeted earlier simply because it is seen by the terrorists as a symbol of westernised establishment elites, was one of the original targets along with the Presidency, Parliament and Prime Minister’s House and the driver went for it after finding the routes to the other targets blocked by heavy security contingents. *

Home | Editorial

Share this story!