Welcome to Pakistan! Mr George W Bush, President of the United States of America, you are a valued guest even if most Pakistanis don't like you and oppose your policies. Our religion and culture has taught us that guests bring good luck. We hope and pray that this is true in your case also even though many of us are apprehensive that you have come with a "wish list" that makes undue demands on Pakistan and offers very little in return.
You obviously will be aware that an overwhelming majority of Pakistanis are anti-US. It would be worthwhile to repeat here as to why the US is so unpopular in a country that has been and remains one of its oldest and closest allies. In fact, Pakistan's role is crucial for the success of America's war on terror, which presently is your greatest priority. Not long ago, Islamabad was an important member of the US-sponsored military organisations CENTO and SEATO, both aimed at checking the power and influence of the then Soviet Union. Pakistan subsequently served as the headquarters for the Afghan "jihad" against the Soviet Red Army in neighbouring Afghanistan, helping defeat communism and contributing to the collapse of the USSR. In a way, Moscow's problems stemmed from its Afghanistan misadventure. A militarily weakened Soviet Union with a burdensome economy lagged far behind the US at that stage of the Cold War and Russia was left with no other option but to let its constituents become independent states. As a consequence, the USSR folded up and the US became the world's sole superpower.
Most Pakistanis feel the US hasn't properly acknowledged Pakistan's role in advancing American interests in the region. There is a strong belief that Islamabad hasn't been compensated for all it has done for the US as part of the Western alliance against the Soviet Union during the Cold War and later as the so-called "frontline state" in the war in Afghanistan. Pakistan was the bridge for the US to build relations with China when it facilitated foreign secretary Henry Kissinger's visit to Beijing. And Pakistan is once again the "frontline state" for the US war on terror even though it has been assigned an entirely different task than the one it performed as the biggest supporter of the Afghan mujahideen during the 1980s and 1990s. Now Pakistan is required to capture and kill the militants it had harboured and equipped in a joint project with America as part of the "jihad" against Soviet and Afghan communists. Many Pakistanis dismiss suggestions by US scholars and the media that Islamabad was adequately paid for the different kinds of thankless jobs that it was tasked to perform.
As there is no use lamenting the past, one would like to move on and talk about the present. In fact, Islamabad should be more concerned about the future now that the US has finally decided to deal with Pakistan and India separately rather than continuing its past policy of linking its relationship with the two South Asian neighbours and befriending one at the expense of the other. The US hasn't attempted to hide its excitement for getting the opportunity to build a strategic relationship with India. The shift means that India would henceforth be the preferred and most important partner for the US worldwide. Pakistan, on the other hand, has been relegated to a partnership in the war on terror only. Any benefit that Islamabad would be getting as a result of its role in helping the US fight its enemies would be indirect and unintentional. Pakistan could hope to stay relevant to the US in view of the endless nature of America's war on terror. But its importance would be in proportion to the perceived dangers to the US interests in the region. Therefore, Washington would feel less obliged to Islamabad in case al-Qaeda and the Taliban fail to sustain their resistance in Afghanistan and are no longer able to pose a threat to the US and its allies.
It would be naïve for us to expect the US to support Pakistan in context of Kashmir. Rather, it would be realistic to expect Washington to put pressure on Islamabad instead of New Delhi to concede a lot more than we have already done and accept a Kashmir solution on Indian terms. The "wish list" that was mentioned earlier in the article would surely contain a demand by President Bush that Pakistan close down any military training camps still existing in Pakistani Kashmir and put an end to infiltration of fighters into Indian Kashmir. More worrying for Pakistan is the US President's statement in Kabul on March 1 that he would be taking up the issue of cross-border infiltrations from Pakistan into Afghanistan. With both its western and eastern neighbours accusing Pakistan of facilitating infiltrators causing harm to their people and assets and the US giving its seal of approval to these accusations, one wonders whether all this is part of a well-conceived strategy to pressure Islamabad into accepting the fait accompli.
This strategy had worked in the case of Kashmir earlier when Pakistan conceded that infiltrations were taking place and had to initiate steps to put a check on cross-border movements and ban some of the jihadi groups. Pakistan has already admitted that al-Qaeda and Taliban fighters were operating in the border areas after having deployed 80,000 troops to stop infiltrations into Afghanistan and hunt down the foreign and local militants. But it is being asked to do more and it is possible that Washington and Kabul will keep coming up with fresh demands that Pakistan will not always be able or willing to accept.
To revert to the original aim of this article, it will be worthwhile to remind President Bush of some other reasons for his and his country's unpopularity in Pakistan. Rather than taking a clear stand on the issue of caricatures of Prophet Mohammad (PBUH), you phoned Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen to express solidarity with Denmark and at the same time tried to put the blame on Muslims rightfully protesting the insult to their most beloved prophet. The violence by some Muslims while holding protests cannot absolve the government of Denmark and the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten of the blame for humiliating the best human-being sent to this world and provoking around 1.5 billion Muslims. Knowing that you are keen to improve America's image among Muslims, you could have done a lot better and claimed the status of a statesman by sympathising with the aggrieved Muslims and taking steps to calm the situation.
We have other complaints as well. Though your wrong usage of English words has now become common, we in Pakistan cannot believe that you weren't aware of the damage that your use of the word "Pakistani" for Pakistanis was going to cause. Not long ago and soon after 9/11, you made many enemies among Muslims by using the word "Crusades" for your war on terror. A number of Muslims refuse to believe that it was a slip of the tongue after having seen the US invasion of Islamic countries such as Afghanistan and Iraq, the abuse of Muslim prisoners in Abu Ghraib, Bagram and Guantanamo Bay, and your country's unconditional support for Israel at the expense of the persecuted and displaced Palestinians.
Your backing for kings, generals and other dictators in Islamic countries and your refusal to accept the electoral victory of Islamic movements, including the Hamas in Palestine, is also annoying. For a change, it would be worthwhile for you to demand for us Muslims the same fundamental and democratic rights that your people in the West have been enjoying for ages. You must stay assured that an overwhelming majority of Muslims have no objection to your way of life and values. All they want from you is to let them live the way that suits their religion and culture.
The writer, Rahimullah Yusufzai, is an executive editor of The News International based in Peshawar.
http://www.jang.com.pk/thenews/mar2006-dai...006/oped/o4.htm
You obviously will be aware that an overwhelming majority of Pakistanis are anti-US. It would be worthwhile to repeat here as to why the US is so unpopular in a country that has been and remains one of its oldest and closest allies. In fact, Pakistan's role is crucial for the success of America's war on terror, which presently is your greatest priority. Not long ago, Islamabad was an important member of the US-sponsored military organisations CENTO and SEATO, both aimed at checking the power and influence of the then Soviet Union. Pakistan subsequently served as the headquarters for the Afghan "jihad" against the Soviet Red Army in neighbouring Afghanistan, helping defeat communism and contributing to the collapse of the USSR. In a way, Moscow's problems stemmed from its Afghanistan misadventure. A militarily weakened Soviet Union with a burdensome economy lagged far behind the US at that stage of the Cold War and Russia was left with no other option but to let its constituents become independent states. As a consequence, the USSR folded up and the US became the world's sole superpower.
Most Pakistanis feel the US hasn't properly acknowledged Pakistan's role in advancing American interests in the region. There is a strong belief that Islamabad hasn't been compensated for all it has done for the US as part of the Western alliance against the Soviet Union during the Cold War and later as the so-called "frontline state" in the war in Afghanistan. Pakistan was the bridge for the US to build relations with China when it facilitated foreign secretary Henry Kissinger's visit to Beijing. And Pakistan is once again the "frontline state" for the US war on terror even though it has been assigned an entirely different task than the one it performed as the biggest supporter of the Afghan mujahideen during the 1980s and 1990s. Now Pakistan is required to capture and kill the militants it had harboured and equipped in a joint project with America as part of the "jihad" against Soviet and Afghan communists. Many Pakistanis dismiss suggestions by US scholars and the media that Islamabad was adequately paid for the different kinds of thankless jobs that it was tasked to perform.
As there is no use lamenting the past, one would like to move on and talk about the present. In fact, Islamabad should be more concerned about the future now that the US has finally decided to deal with Pakistan and India separately rather than continuing its past policy of linking its relationship with the two South Asian neighbours and befriending one at the expense of the other. The US hasn't attempted to hide its excitement for getting the opportunity to build a strategic relationship with India. The shift means that India would henceforth be the preferred and most important partner for the US worldwide. Pakistan, on the other hand, has been relegated to a partnership in the war on terror only. Any benefit that Islamabad would be getting as a result of its role in helping the US fight its enemies would be indirect and unintentional. Pakistan could hope to stay relevant to the US in view of the endless nature of America's war on terror. But its importance would be in proportion to the perceived dangers to the US interests in the region. Therefore, Washington would feel less obliged to Islamabad in case al-Qaeda and the Taliban fail to sustain their resistance in Afghanistan and are no longer able to pose a threat to the US and its allies.
It would be naïve for us to expect the US to support Pakistan in context of Kashmir. Rather, it would be realistic to expect Washington to put pressure on Islamabad instead of New Delhi to concede a lot more than we have already done and accept a Kashmir solution on Indian terms. The "wish list" that was mentioned earlier in the article would surely contain a demand by President Bush that Pakistan close down any military training camps still existing in Pakistani Kashmir and put an end to infiltration of fighters into Indian Kashmir. More worrying for Pakistan is the US President's statement in Kabul on March 1 that he would be taking up the issue of cross-border infiltrations from Pakistan into Afghanistan. With both its western and eastern neighbours accusing Pakistan of facilitating infiltrators causing harm to their people and assets and the US giving its seal of approval to these accusations, one wonders whether all this is part of a well-conceived strategy to pressure Islamabad into accepting the fait accompli.
This strategy had worked in the case of Kashmir earlier when Pakistan conceded that infiltrations were taking place and had to initiate steps to put a check on cross-border movements and ban some of the jihadi groups. Pakistan has already admitted that al-Qaeda and Taliban fighters were operating in the border areas after having deployed 80,000 troops to stop infiltrations into Afghanistan and hunt down the foreign and local militants. But it is being asked to do more and it is possible that Washington and Kabul will keep coming up with fresh demands that Pakistan will not always be able or willing to accept.
To revert to the original aim of this article, it will be worthwhile to remind President Bush of some other reasons for his and his country's unpopularity in Pakistan. Rather than taking a clear stand on the issue of caricatures of Prophet Mohammad (PBUH), you phoned Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen to express solidarity with Denmark and at the same time tried to put the blame on Muslims rightfully protesting the insult to their most beloved prophet. The violence by some Muslims while holding protests cannot absolve the government of Denmark and the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten of the blame for humiliating the best human-being sent to this world and provoking around 1.5 billion Muslims. Knowing that you are keen to improve America's image among Muslims, you could have done a lot better and claimed the status of a statesman by sympathising with the aggrieved Muslims and taking steps to calm the situation.
We have other complaints as well. Though your wrong usage of English words has now become common, we in Pakistan cannot believe that you weren't aware of the damage that your use of the word "Pakistani" for Pakistanis was going to cause. Not long ago and soon after 9/11, you made many enemies among Muslims by using the word "Crusades" for your war on terror. A number of Muslims refuse to believe that it was a slip of the tongue after having seen the US invasion of Islamic countries such as Afghanistan and Iraq, the abuse of Muslim prisoners in Abu Ghraib, Bagram and Guantanamo Bay, and your country's unconditional support for Israel at the expense of the persecuted and displaced Palestinians.
Your backing for kings, generals and other dictators in Islamic countries and your refusal to accept the electoral victory of Islamic movements, including the Hamas in Palestine, is also annoying. For a change, it would be worthwhile for you to demand for us Muslims the same fundamental and democratic rights that your people in the West have been enjoying for ages. You must stay assured that an overwhelming majority of Muslims have no objection to your way of life and values. All they want from you is to let them live the way that suits their religion and culture.
The writer, Rahimullah Yusufzai, is an executive editor of The News International based in Peshawar.
http://www.jang.com.pk/thenews/mar2006-dai...006/oped/o4.htm
And it thinks that giving Pakistan weapons and stuff is no use, because India wont attack it, and possible solutions can come through once India occupies Lahore. :wall:
