In the press conference that he addressed following his meetings with Pakistan's foreign ministry officials last Thursday, the visiting US Under Secretary of State, Richard Armitage, covered a number of issues of mutual interest, telling journalists that the US is "completely satisfied with where we are in our relationship."
Most of the assertions that he made on the occasion, though, offered little to us to feel the same way. His assurance that the US would speed up the delivery of military equipment to Pakistan could have pleased many in this country but for the fact that this equipment is not meant for meeting Pakistan's defence needs; it is to be used to fight US enemies along the border with Afghanistan.
Much to the chagrin of his hosts, Armitage made no effort to tone down the strong accusatory remarks that he had made against Pakistan a day earlier in India. On the contrary, he averred that he was correctly quoted as having said that "all the terrorist camps [on the Pakistani side] have not been dismantled."
It is rather surprising that he should have made these remarks at this point in time. For quite some time now, since the resumption of Pak-Indian dialogue process, various US officials as well as Indian leaders have been acknowledging that the level infiltration of across LoC has come down significantly. In fact, Armitage himself noted, albeit in a roundabout fashion, that there is an indigenous freedom movement in the occupied Kashmir when he observed, "There are lots of different kinds of violence. Some across the LoC and other indigenous violence." If at all some across LoC activity is still taking place, Pakistan may not be to blame for it. Freedom movements, such as the one going on in Kashmir, have their own logic and life, which cannot be changed by outsiders, even when they happen to be sympathetic old allies.
If Pakistan has decided to stop backing the Kashmir freedom fighters that does not necessarily mean those carrying out the fight too have agreed to do the same. Armitage, apparently, made the allegation that he did to address India's recent complaints about the US having tilted towards Pakistan, especially after it declared this country as a major non-Nato ally. But now that both Pakistan and India are moving fast on the track of normalisation, accusations of sponsoring cross-LoC terrorism can only generate an unnecessary acrimony in the region.
On the issue of Pakistanis incarcerated at the infamous Guantanamo Bay prison, he did not have much good news to offer. All he said was that those who do not have useful information would be released. Guantanamo has earned the US world-wide disapprobation for being violative of international law and human rights. Since there are around 60 Pakistanis still held there, the issue is of grave concern to the public here.
The US cannot treat this country's citizens with utter disdain, denying them their fundamental human right to due process and yet expect their fellow countrymen to support its war against al Qaeda/Taleban in Afghanistan and their sympathisers in this country's own backyard in the Frontier region.
It must immediately free those who are not suspected of any serious involvement in undesirable activities and provide the others the opportunity to prove their innocence in a court of law.
Though government officials here have been denying that the US is pressuring Pakistan to send its troops to Iraq to help it consolidate its occupation of that country, there have been persistent apprehensions that this might happen sooner rather than later.
The recent appointment of a Pakistani diplomat, Ashraf Jehangir Qazi, as the UN Secretary-General's special envoy to Iraq, though officially described as an honour, is increasingly seen as a way of justifying the deployment of Pakistani troops to guard the UN facilities there. The Pakistani Foreign Secretary and Armitage both denied that the US has made any request to that effect.
Hopefully, they will not change that stance in the days to come on one pretext or another. It was for the right reasons that Pakistan had opposed the Iraq invasion and occupation in the Security Council, for the same reasons now it must not agree to support the schemes to address the aftermath of that illegal and immoral war.
Comments
Comments are closed.