The credibility of Pakistans ruling elite, both civil and military, has been badly damaged as a result of what the WikiLeaks have divulged. Prime Minister Gilanis decision to summon the DCC is thus being interpreted as an exercise aimed at damage control. The common man meanwhile seeks answers to some of the disturbing questions raised by the leaks.
Some of the leaks raise the disturbing question that whether the actions taken by the guardians of national sovereignty are in consonance with the oaths administered to them. Those wielding power have secretly given concessions to the US which they would be ashamed of owning in public. While the government continues to protest against drone attacks, President Zardari tells an American official “I don’t care if they do it as long as they get the right people. Further, “We’ll protest in the National Assembly and then ignore it.” While military spokesmen are never tired of denying the existence of foreign boots on Pakistans soil we find, courtesy the WikiLeaks, that a group of American Special Operations soldiers has been allowed to deploy with Pakistani troops inside the tribal areas. This leads one to suspect there might be other concessions of the sort too.
What is the status of the Shamsi airbase, for instance? The ministry of defence is in a state of denial about the airbase being under the US control. A retired general has however claimed the base was handed over to the US secretly by Musharraf who did this without taking on board the military high command presumably in return for promise of continuing American support for him.
The permission to allow Special Operations soldiers to operate from Pakistan was taken after Musharraf had left. One would like to know why a concession that impinges on the countrys sovereignty was given without taking the parliament into confidence. This creates the perception that whosoever took the decision had told the Americans he was willing to deliver whatever it takes, provided he was backed by the US.
Why was the US envoy Anne Patterson being treated as an arbiter by both civilian and military leaders who in separate sessions fulminated against one another in the presence of the ambassador? Why shouldnt the two sides have settled their differences without outside intervention?
While talking to the US officials, political and military leadership give the impression of working at cross purposes. The COAS and ISI chief tell the American envoy that there were concerns in the military about corruption and misgovernance on the part of Zardari. Was this meant to prepare grounds for Zardaris removal at a suitable moment? The COAS and ISI chief Shuja Pasha tell the envoy that while the army was willing in 2009 to start operation in South Waziristan, Zardari had delayed it for political reasons. They also tell her they were keen for backchannel talks with India but Zardari had opposed it.
Not to be left behind, Zardari assures top US officials that he is in agreement with the US aims in the region but he is powerless on account of opposition from the military. He also tells the then British Foreign Secretary David Miliband that his men i.e. army officers and ISI officials were not sharing critical information with him.
Political leaders reveal their innermost thoughts, fears and ambitions not to the people who do not seem to matter in their eyes or to Parliament or the Pakistani media but to the Western officials. Thus, Zardari seeks US support against ISI chief and Kayani complaining to Vice President Joe Biden that they were going to take me out. He also discusses with Patterson future arrangements envisaged by him in case he was removed from the political scene. As reported by the envoy he had instructed his son Bilawal to name his (Zardari’s) sister, Faryal Talpur, as president”.
In March 2009, General Kayani told the US ambassador that he might, however reluctantly, pressure Mr. Zardari to resign and presumably leave Pakistan. Kayani was quoted as saying that he might support Asfandyar Wali Khan, leader of the Awami National Party, as the new president, thus, avoiding elections that would likely bring to power Zardari’s arch-nemesis Nawaz Sharif whom he distrusted.
This raises another important question. Who gave the COAS the authority to pressurise a duly elected President to resign, propose Asfandyars name as replacement or reject the idea of fresh elections to keep Nawaz out? Again, did he hesitate to go ahead because the idea was not acceptable to the US?
A race seems to be going on between those who matter to prove their loyalties to the US and create doubts about those of their opponents. Zardari tells Patterson that Shahbaz Sharif leaked out the information to Jamaat ud Daawa regarding an impending action against the organisation with the result that JuD removed all its funds from the banks. Similarly, Nawaz Sharif tries to prove his pro-US credentials by reminding the envoy of his decision to oppose the Iraqi president during the first Gulf war disregarding Gen Aslam Beg, then COAS.
What emerges from the leaks is that the US is interfering in most of the affairs of Pakistan. What is more: those who matter are helping it.
The writer is a former academic and a political analyst.
