U.S. accusations that Pakistan is supporting Afghan insurgents have
triggered a nationalist backlash and whipped up media fears of an
American invasion, drowning out any discussion over the army's long use
of jihadi groups as deadly proxies in the region.
The reaction
shows the problem facing the United States as it presses Pakistan for
action: Strong statements in Washington provoke a negative public
response that makes it more difficult for the army to act against the
militants — even if it decided it was in the country's interest to do
so.
Pakistan's mostly conservative populace is deeply suspicious
of U.S. intentions a decade after Washington forged an alliance with
Islamabad. Many people here believe the U.S. wants to break up Pakistan
and take its arsenal of nuclear weapons, and America is very unpopular
throughout the country.
By contrast, Pakistanis lack unity
against Islamic militants. Politicians and media commentators are often
ambiguous in their criticism of the Pakistani Taliban, despite its
carrying out near weekly bombings in Pakistan over the past four years.
One
small private television channel has aired an advertisement that
features images of Adm. Mike Mullen, America's top military officer,
and Leon Panetta, the head of the CIA, along with scenes of the
Pakistani army fighting and raising the country's flag.
Each time
the Americans appear, a shrill voice sings: "Enemies, you have
challenged a nation which has a growing knowledge of the Quran and the
support from Allah. Our task in this world is to eliminate the name of
the killers!"
Mullen's comments on Capitol Hill last week set off the storm.
He
said the Haqqani network, the most deadly and organized force fighting
American troops in Afghanistan, was a "veritable arm" of Pakistan's
premier spy agency, the strongest public statement yet by U.S.
officials on Pakistan's long suspected duplicity.
He and other
U.S. officials suggested that the U.S. would use any means necessary to
defend itself. That raised speculation here that America might deploy
troops in Pakistan's North Waziristan territory, the Afghan border
region where the Haqqanis are based.
Most analysts view that
scenario as highly unlikely because of the risks it entails for U.S.
interests in the region. But it has not stopped right-wing politicians
and retired generals that are well represented on TV talk shows from
speculating on the threat of American boots on Pakistani soil.
On
Thursday, the leaders of the country's feuding political parties will
put aside their differences to sit under one roof to discuss the issue.
In announcing the meeting, Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani said the
lawmakers will discuss "the security situation in the wake of threats
emanating from outside the country."
The Sunni Ittehad Council,
an organization representing the country's Barelvi sect, often referred
to as the most moderate among Pakistani Muslims, issued a statement
saying it was obligatory on all Muslims to wage jihad against the
United States if it attacked Pakistan.
"The Pakistani government
and the armed forces should start preparing to counter any possible
American attack as Islamic law suggests 'keeping the horses ready' to
counter any sort of foreign aggression," the statement said.
There have been a few small street protests since Mullen's comments, but nothing major.
In
some respects, the situation mirrors the atmosphere after the May 2
American helicopter raid on Osama bin Laden, which was carried out
without the knowledge of the Pakistani army. There was outrage then
over the infringement of the country's sovereignty by the U.S., but
little on how bin Laden had been living in the army town of Abbottabad
for so long.
Now, the focus is on Pakistan's public humiliation at the hands of a supposed ally — and the threat of American action.
There
appears to have been little debate on whether Pakistan is right to
allow the Haqqani network free reign in parts of the country. Nor has
there been much discussion of Pakistan's historical use of militant
proxies in India. This is all the more striking because the Haqqani
network and other militants are allied, at least ideologically, to the
Pakistani Taliban, who carry out attacks inside Pakistan.
The
dominant right-wing narrative in Pakistan following Mullen's comments
has been that the United States is losing the war in Afghanistan and
wants to pin the blame on Islamabad. The threat posed by the Haqqani
network is seen as exaggerated, and tackling them now is thought not to
be in Pakistan's interest.
The anger this week at America
coincided with the visit of Chinese Public Security Minister Meng
Jianzhu, allowing the media and politicians to peddle another populist
trope: that Beijing will be able to replace the United States as a
source of funds if and when Pakistan chooses to sever its ties with
Washington.
"American allegations and threats have extremely
endangered our country's security and sovereignty. It is high time ...
we should consult our friendly neighbors and other countries out of
this region and get their support," said an editorial in the right-wing
mass circulation paper, Nawa-i-Waqt.
Most analysts say this hope
is misplaced, noting that Beijing shares international concerns about
Pakistan as a breeding ground for terrorism and has shown little sign
it wants to prop up the government. The hope also fails to address how
China would replace American influence on institutions like the World
Bank and the International Monetary Fund.
Anti-American sentiment
in Pakistan was already rife and growing, following the shooting deaths
of two Pakistanis by CIA operatives in Lahore in January and the raid
on bin Laden. Both events were portrayed here as further evidence of
the malign intentions of the United States.
The Pakistani media
tend to focus on the supposed American threat because that's what
Pakistanis want to read and hear about, said Cyril Almedia, a liberal
political analyst and columnist. But he said there were signs that
those who wanted to see the alliance with the United States break down
may be disappointed, noting that the army — which receives billions
from the United States in aid — had been relatively muted in its
reaction.
"Emotions are running high, but there are indications
the military is performing a delicate balancing act," Almedia said. "On
the one hand, it is trying to give a response that satisfies a
paranoid, conservative population and the rank-and-file, yet also a
feeling that this is not the moment to cause a complete rupture with
the United States." AP
