Enough has been said in Washington, DC, and outside on Pakistan’s hypocrisy in fighting terror. But Islamabad has got away

There will scarcely be an informed person in the United States of America that is unaware of Pakistan’s duplicity in fighting terrorism. Congressional leaders, think-tanks, expert commentators and policy analysts have produced innumerable reports that point to Islamabad’s (and Rawalpindi’s) shenanigans. These findings have been often accompanied by demands for censuring Pakistan through not just words but also action. As Secretary of State in the Obama Administration, Hillary Clinton had warned the Pakistani establishment of ‘nurturing snakes in its backyard’ lest it bites the hand that feeds it.

The snake remains fed. Pakistan’s duplicity in fighting terrorism hasn’t been daunted one bit by these observations. Terrorists and terror activities from its soil continue to swamp the region — from India to Bangladesh to Afghanistan. The US knows it all, but refuses to decisively act. All that it understands of ‘global terror’ is the Al Qaeda and the Islamic State. ‘Regional’ outfits such as the lashkar-e-Tayyeba and the Jaish-e-Mohammad haven’t threatened the US or its allies, so their role in fomenting violence and unrest in the South Asian region is not a priority for American Governments. One had thought that after it had discovered Osama bin laden living a sheltered life in Pakistan, and neutralised him too in that abode not too far away from a Pakistan Army establishment, Washington, DC, would finally wake up from its slumber of many years. There were a few expected rounds of verbal condemnation; some threats of retaliation; talks of holding back financial assistance, both civil and military. A bit of such money was held back, the supply of some military hardware was delayed, and the Pakistani leadership was treated by the American establishment with a measure of aloofness.

Soon it was business as usual between the two nations. Even before bin laden was found living in peace inside Pakistan, there were instances of deviousness by Islamabad in the cause of fighting terrorism. And yet, nothing that India said to the Americans about it, seemed to convince them. After 9/11 happened, and after President George W Bush’s famous blunt message to the Pakistanis — Either you are with us or you are against us — Islamabad promptly declared it was indeed ‘with’ the US. One widely circulated news report said that the Bush Administration had threatened to “bomb Pakistan back to the Stone Age” in case it failed to fall in line. This warm message from President Bush — and who can suspect Bush Junior of not being capable of delivering such wonderful sentiments! — was apparently conveyed to Pakistani President General Pervez Musharraf, who grasped it instantly.

What followed thereafter was a farce of the most delectable kind. Pakistan joined the US in the latter’s global war against terror, but continued to promote terror activities right in its backyard — against India and the rest of the neighbouring nations. At times, it even was emboldened to double-cross the US, while covertly backing the Haqqani network, for instance; and even elements of the Al Qaeda or its affiliates. But, however much the Pakistanis used subterfuge, the Americans found out — primarily from Indian agencies and others in South Asia, as well from informed sources within the US — but did little. Along the way, however, they declared it as the US’s ‘most important non-Nato ally’.

The list of American indictments is as impressive as the lack of action on the part of various US administrations has been shocking. A year ago, during a Congressional hearing, several members squarely blamed Pakistan for violence in Afghanistan, for helping the Haqqani network and the lashkar, and for working against American interests. The Sub-committee on Asia and the Pacific was studying the Administration’s 2017 Budget proposal for Afghanistan and Pakistan. US official Richard Olson admitted that that Pakistan was targeting only its domestic enemies and that it needed to initiate more “robust action” against all terrorist groups.

Around nine months ago, two US lawmakers moved a Bill in the Congress, wanting Pakistan to be designated as a ‘state sponsor of terrorism’. The Bill titled, The Pakistan State Sponsor of Terrorism Designation Act, was introduced by the Chairman of the House Sub-Committee on Terrorism, Ted Poe, and Congressman Dana Rohrabacher. Congressman Poe termed Pakistan an “untrustworthy ally”. later, Poe again moved the Bill and accused Islamabad of sheltering bin laden and backing the Haqqani network.

Then came a US think-tank report this June. laying down Pakistan’s duplicity, it said the country was not an ally of, but a threat to, the US. The report, published by the Center for Strategic and International Studies, accused Pakistan of harbouring terrorist groups including the Haqqani network and the Taliban. It said, “The US should make it clear to Pakistan that it faces a total end to aid, and the imposition of sanctions, if it continues to support these organisations.” 

Will President Donald Trump actIJ He has so far spoken tough on the subject. But he’s mercurial and can flip-flop. let’s see. N

When they met…

• In 1949, Nehru spent three weeks in the US and met President Harry S Truman. The meeting was a flop as the two leaders failed to strike any rapport
• Nehru's last visit to the US in 1961 was as disastrous as his first. His summit with John F Kennedy was a failure. Kennedy had remarked, “It was like trying to grab something in your hand, only to have it turn out to be fog.”
• Relationship between US President Richard Nixon and Prime Minister Indira Gandhi was the worst that any two leaders of both these democracies have had. On hearing that Indira Gandhi had declared war on Pakistan, Nixon had ranted, “She suckered us. Suckered us... this woman suckered us.” Both leaders shared the utmost contempt for each other.
• The arrangement between President Bill Clinton and Prime Minister AB Vajpayee was cordial, especially towards the end of Clinton’s term. By then India had emerged as an economic powerhouse, wooed by the West, including the US.
• If the worst rapport was that between Nixon and Indira Gandhi, the best came to be the between Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and President George W Bush. The historic civil nuclear deal was signed during their tenure. Bush, for political reasons, was not seen favourably in India by many, after the post-9/11 global war on terror. But any US leader in Geoerge Bush’s place would have responded similarly to the attack.
• The Narendra Modi-Barack Obama relationship remains the closest that we have seen between leaders of the two nations. They were on first-name terms and brought India and the US truly together. Their chai pe charcha is unforgettable.