Pakistan has been a
reluctant player in the global war against terrorism. This is not something
which is not known to the world. But the frequent flip-flops by world powers
have only emboldened Pakistan to carry out with its state policy of sponsoring
terrorism with impunity. With unflinching support from its all-weather ally
China, which has often misused its position of veto power at the Security
Council, Pakistan does not care too hoots to reported threats or warnings.
Pakistan has once again thumbed its nose to India and the United States by
releasing terror mastermind Hafiz Saeed from house arrest.
 |
| The Desi Times |
Pakistan may fend off criticism by saying that it is the
court which has decided to free him and not the government. But it surely
cannot escape blame for not presenting its case properly in the court,
facilitating Saeed’s release from house arrest.
In fact, India has presented voluminous evidences to Pakistan for his
role in the deadly 2008 Mumbai attacks. Pakistan’s feeble defence that Saeed’s
release could invite economic sanctions did not cut ice with the court.
Hafiz Saeed’s release
is no doubt a setback for India, but it also sets Pakistan on a collision
course with the United States which has announced a $10 million bounty on his
head over the 2008 Mumbai attack that killed 166 people, including six
Americans. It should be recalled that the United States Department of the
Treasury had designated Saeed as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist under
executive order 13224 in May 2008 before the Mumbai attacks happened. And a
month later the November 26, 2008 Mumbai attacks, Saeed was also individually
designated by the United Nations under UNSCR 1267. Ironically, Saeed had been
moving freely in Pakistan ranting against India and the United States for more
than eight years before his so-called house arrest in January this year. That
Pakistan has allowed him to carry on with his anti-Kashmir agenda speaks
volumes about its so-called seriousness as far as the war against terrorism is
concerned.
Had the US been really serious about Saeed, it could have
easily put pressure on Pakistan to act. But Saeed is a lesser threat to the US
in comparison to India. That explains the reason why the US is not matching its
words with action. The case in point is al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden who was
smoked out from his safe compound of Abbotabad in Pakistan's Khyber Pakhtunkhwa
province in May 2011 by the US elite forces.
The US had named Laden as the chief conspirator of the deadly September
11, 2001 attacks.
The US announced the bounty on Saeed in 2012 for information
leading to his arrest and conviction four years after he was designated as a
global terrorist. But the leader of Jamaat-ud-Dawa (JuD), which has been a
front for the Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) militant group, had been roaming free and
giving hatred speeches against India and the US. While it took nearly 10 years
for the United States to locate and kill Laden, Saeed has presented himself
before the media and the people of Pakistan several times. If the US wanted, it
could have easily eliminated Saeed. Who is playing the joke as far as bounty on
Saeed is concerned? Pakistan or the United States, or both! The US reacted to
Saeed’s release by making a supine statement. “The Pakistani government should
make sure that he is arrested and charged for his crimes,” U.S. State
Department spokeswoman Heather Nauert said.
It was only after India launched a major diplomatic drive
against Pakistan for allowing the release of Sayeed that the US tempered its
language the next day. A White House statement warned of repercussions for
US-Pakistan relations and for Pakistan’s global reputation unless it took action
to detain and charge Sayeed. Unlike the US State Department, the White House
statement was very critical of Pakistan and warned that the relations between
the two countries depended largely on the latter’s conduct. The White House
said Pakistan’s failure to charge Saeed sent “a deeply troubling message about
Pakistan’s commitment to (combating) international terrorism,” adding that it
also was counter to Pakistan’s claim that it did not provide sanctuary to
militants.
Unlike his predecessor Barack Obama, President Donald Trump
has been vociferous in his criticism against Pakistan for its failure to take
action against militants engineering attacks on Afghanistan and India from its
safe sanctuaries. “We can no longer be silent about Pakistan’s safe havens for
terrorist organisations,” Trump said while unveiling his administration’s
policy for south Asia in August, adding that Pakistan would have “much to lose”
if it did not comply. But such warnings have had little effect on Pakistan.
There is no doubt that Pakistan has, of late, fallen out of
favour of the United States which accuses it of pocketing billions of dollars
meant for anti-militant operations against Afghanistan. The US is fighting a
war in Afghanistan against the very militants who have been trained and
financed by Pakistan, and who continue to find safe sanctuary in Pakistan after
carrying out attacks in Afghanistan. The
ties between the US and Pakistan have worsened further after the later moved
closer to China in the last few years.
 |
| slate.com |
If President Trump really wants to live up to his image and
his words, then he should decide once and for all whether to continue ties with
a country which has been playing a double game as far as the war against
terrorism is concerned or to amend his administration’s decades-long carrot and
stick approach. To begin with, Trump can revoke Pakistan’s non-NATO ally
status. Though symbolic, it will deal a big reputational blow to Pakistan.
Non-NATO ally status is conferred on countries which have a strategic working
relationship with US forces but are not members of the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization. The then George Bush administration had designated the non-NATO
ally status to Pakistan in 2004 for helping the US in its fight against al
Qaeda and Taliban militants in Afghanistan. If Pakistan is still unmoved by
this action, then President Trump will have to take a final call what Mr Bush
famously used the phrase after the 9/11 attacks that “Every nation, in every
region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the
terrorists.”
