02/12/2017

IN RELEASING HAFIZ SAEED, PAKISTAN CHALLENGES INDIA AND US


 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.”  


No comments:

Post a Comment