Not without an apology

How to bring relations back on track?

In the 10-year US-led ‘war on terror’ there has been repeated criticism in Pakistan about its objectives and strategy. Pakistan too, as US’s principal partner in this war, has gone ahead despite distrust and disagreements. Suspicion in fact has been the mainstay on both sides, as has been the need to remain partners.

But the November 26 US-led Nato attacks on the Salala border posts in Mohmand Agency upset even this uneasy partnership. Twenty-four Pakistani troops were martyred in these air-strikes. Pakistan has rejected Washington’s& Brussels’s initial explanation of self-defence or even the attacks being accidental. According to Pakistan’s narrative, the deadly attacks were pre-meditated. The two narratives obviously clash.

In Pakistan, the question being repeatedly asked is why would a key ally actually opt to attack? What was the intended purpose? The US-led Nato forces demolished men and materials at these checkposts recently set up to prevent, reportedly TTP militants coming from Afghanistan and attacking Pakistani forces. Pakistanis claim the Americans had been informed of these border posts.

Meanwhile, in Washington the US military chief Gen Martin Dempsey refuting the Pakistani insistence of the Nato attack being a deliberate one wondered, “What in the world we will hope to gain from it?” It has come down to Dempsey’s word versus what Pakistan’s Director-General Military Operations believes has happened and has accordingly briefed the Cabinet, the parliamentary committees and the media.

Dempsey’s question even many outraged Pakistanis share. Could CIA without Dempsey’s clearance have masterminded this? Possible objectives: to test Pakistan’s institutional threshold for a Salala-like US attack to assess the political, military and diplomatic response from Pakistan. The US military chief has already declared that under hot pursuit, terrorist sanctuaries in Pakistan need to be dismantled.

Notably BBC’s recent two-hour documentary “Secret Pakistan” points to the US, UK and Nato attempt at scapegoating Pakistan for their failure in Afghanistan. It conveniently ascribes the lack of progress in the decade long war against terrorism in Afghanistan and their occupation of the country to “Pakistani duplicity.”

Could the Pentagon and CIA have retaliated to the attacks inside Afghanistan by largely Pakistan-based militants like the Haqqani network? Attacks also targeted the US embassy and Nato headquarters in Kabul earlier this year. Is the underlying message: if our soldiers are targeted, yours will also not be spared? This is also somewhat reflected in the post November 26 attack statement from the Nato Secretary-general, saying he was sorry to learn about the deaths of Pakistani troops just as he is sorry about deaths of Nato and American soldiers in Afghanistan. Where is the parallel, how can foreign troops killed by militants be equated with deaths of Pakistani soldiers caused by an attack by US forces?

Another view could be that according to Pentagon/CIA calculations, the Salala attack was a punitive move to strengthen anti-Pakistan TTP thereby putting pressure on Pakistan to facilitate dialogue and help ‘deal’ with the Taliban and the Haqqani group.

The Salala attack has led to the surfacing of another key fear of Washington’s final aim to neutralise Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal. Fear is again gripping the imagination of several national security analysts. The argument is that the Salala attack would instigate political instability in Pakistan, weaken the military establishment and re-invoke fear about the Pakistani nuclear arsenal falling in the “wrong hands”. This would, many argue, even if somewhat unconvincing, make a case for international regime to step in and ‘secure’ Pakistan’s nuclear weapons before extremist forces take over.

Bruce Riedel, a former CIA operative and now an influential voice in Washington, has advocated this position. His earlier article titled ‘Containment of Pakistan’ reflects this view. Obama chose Riedel, in 2009, to lead the inter-agency review of policy toward Afghanistan and Pakistan for the White House. According to Riedel, as reported in a December 5 AFP story, “the Pakistani army is gradually installing a new military dictatorship, without even needing to resort to a coup.” He argues that “The new military dictatorship that is emerging in Pakistan will be very different from its predecessors.”

However, while the CENTCOM report of the formal investigation into the Salala airstrike is due on 23 Dec, privately Nato officials have conceded that it was a “massive miscalculation” on the part of a local commander who decided to go for an overkill. That like in three previous similar incidents, this time too they would be able to get away with such a deadly attack.

Despite recent exchanges between Pakistan-US military officials, in Pakistan the word is that unless an apology is forthcoming, resumption of genuine security cooperation is unlikely. In Washington, meanwhile, the importance of the relationship is being daily underscored; yet there is no indication that Washington will apologise.

For both countries, but for different reasons, severing of ties is virtually unthinkable. Some imaginative, win-win approach is definitely needed to bring this currently crisis-ridden relationship back on track. In addition to an apology, punishment of those responsible for the attack, Pakistan also seeks guarantees that a repeat of Salala will not occur.

The writer is a senior journalist and has been a diplomatic correspondent for leading dailies. She was an Alfred Friendly Press Fellow at The Chicago Tribune in the US and a Press Fellow at Wolfson College, Cambridge, UK. She can be reached via email at [email protected]