Pakistan’s summit- level interactions with US leaders make it clear that no one has, nor is anyone looking for, a quick fix solution to the complicated issue of how to make US military intervention in Pakistani territory compatible with the Pakistan-US alliance against the war on terror.
Pakistani officials candidly admit that the Bush-Zardari meeting on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly on Tuesday was more of a courtesy call and a feeble attempt to control the fast downslide in their relations because President Bush is already a lame duck and the US military establishment is waiting for who would be the next man to occupy the White House.
Although, President Asif Ali Zardari gave a much better display of self-confidence and articulated his remarks well after Bush, there was hardly anything new in Bush’s remarks except for the oft-repeated mantra that the US respects Pakistan’s sovereignty and its sovereign right to defend itself against terrorism. Yet he only restricted himself to acknowledging Pakistan’s right to defend itself against terrorism, not against foreign intervention, which ironically is being made by his own forces.
Zardari’s meetings with the Bush administration may help him improve his own image worldwide and within Pakistan, in terms of his confidence and ability to become a statesman on the world stage, yet what he needs are serious detailed sessions with the Democrats who are likely to call all the shots after the Nov 4 elections in the US.
Pakistani officials are mindful here of the transitional phase in Washington and Zardari’s schedule does include talking on telephone to Barack Obama and his running mate Joe Biden but the detailed session will be with former secretary of state Madeleine Albright who will talk to him on behalf of Obama. It would be in these interactions that President Zardari will get the real view of what he should expect in terms of honouring Pakistan’s sovereignty under a new president.
As expected, if Barack Obama becomes the president, American policy towards Pakistan will become too hot to handle for Zardari as the Democrats are committed to increasing the US presence in Afghanistan and more direct intervention in Fata in hot pursuit of terrorists. That will, obviously, tear to shreds all present promises and commitments being made to respect Pakistan’s sovereignty.
The Democratic nominee is not saying at all that he will respect Pakistan’s sovereignty. He has long argued he "would go after high-value al-Qaeda targets in Pakistan if the country’s (current) president was not willing to act." Obama is pro-war in Afghanistan and Pakistan but anti-war in Iraq. In a recent interview with FoxNews channel’s Bill O’Reilly he was asked categorically: "You’re not going to invade Pakistan, senator, if you’re president. You’re not going to send ground troops in there. You know it."
Obama said: "For example, we are providing them military aid without having enough strings attached. So they’re using the military aid that we use to Pakistan, they’re preparing for a war against India.
O’REILLY: So you’re going to pull it out and let the Islamic fundamentalists take them over?
OBAMA: No, no, no, no. What we say is, look, we’re going to provide them with additional military support targeted at terrorists, and we’re going to help build their democracy and provide…
O’REILLY: We’re doing that now. Negroponte’s over there, and he’s doing that.
OBAMA: That is not what we’ve been doing, Bill. We’ve wasted $10 billion with Musharraf without holding him accountable for knocking out those safe havens."
According to analysts, Obama’s plan to defeat terrorism recognises the role of Pakistan from the very start. His plan states: "Al Qaeda has built a stronghold in the tribal areas of northwestern Pakistan. Terror groups affiliated with or inspired by al Qaeda are flourishing around the world."
Obama will end the war in Iraq so that he can focus on what he calls the right battlefield — Afghanistan and Pakistan. He argues for both military and diplomatic solutions with Pakistan.
But if by a long shot, Republican John McCain gets into the White House, for Pakistan it would still be bad news as the Congress and the budget strings are controlled by Congress and a long phase of confrontation on many issues will cripple Washington’s capacity to actually coordinate the war on terror. The people of America are looking for a change and McCain’s victory would mean more of the same in the White House and a belligerent Congress working for a change.
McCain is mostly confused on what he will do with Pakistan. Analysts say he has made comments from time to time on the issue and he does demonstrate an important recognition of the danger of American interference, via force, in Pakistan’s political process, something which comes close to respecting the sovereignty of Pakistan.
For instance, he said in August 2007 that he was clearly opposed to unauthorised aggression into Pakistan, arguing "bombing Pakistan without their permission" would be a mistake. This of course came before the President Bush’s authorised aggression across the border, according to popular online newspaper The Huffington Post.
But McCain has so many other negatives that the American people will find it hard to throw up a potential gridlock situation, specially at a time when America wants to get out of the eight years of the Bush mess, just as Pakistan wants to clean up the Musharraf mess, but has not yet started doing it. In this context, Zardari’s meetings in New York would be more of a real time training session in world diplomacy as conducted by great statesmen, specially in learning how to analyse and extract the real meaning from what people say in public and what they emphasise in closed-door sessions.
For world leaders, it would be instructive to know the new leader of Pakistan, specially when they would contrast him with Benazir Bhutto whom most of them knew so well. It would be naive to look for a ‘yes or no’ answer to the question whether Zardari had a successful visit to New York.