Tribal
jirga in Wana: Continuing deadlock
Pakistan's
Uneasy Role in Terror War
By
Pamela Constable
ISLAMABAD: It was a cinematic moment, heavy with symbolism. In
the courtyard of a village Islamic school, uniformed army officers
greeted tribal fighters wearing enormous turbans and bandoliers.
Rusty rifles and swords were ceremonially presented, and the former
adversaries embraced.
But
the April 24 meeting, which formally ended a bloody month-long
conflict between Pakistani troops and Islamic militants in the
tribal region bordering Afghanistan, also signaled a setback for
Pakistan's campaign to clear al Qaeda and Taliban operatives out
of its border areas. And it underscored persistent contradictions
between Pakistani and US priorities despite the two governments'
alliance against terrorism.
More
than 21/2 years after the United States launched military operations
in Afghanistan, US officials continue to describe the threat
from revived Taliban and al Qaeda forces there as an urgent and
overriding concern. There are constant reports of armed attacks
on military or civilian targets in several Afghan provinces along
the Pakistani border, and extremist groups have vowed to intensify
assaults before the Afghan national elections, which are scheduled
for September.
While
US and Afghan forces pursue their quarry on the Afghan side
of the border, they rely on Pakistan to take on guerrillas who
have found refuge on the other side. From Washington's perspective,
Pakistan's aborted military mission in the tribal area of South
Waziristan was a job half done.
A
series of raids in March ended with more than 120 people dead
but did not result in the capture or killing of any senior Taliban
or al Qaeda figure believed to be sheltered in the rugged, semi-autonomous
region. Instead, the mission ended in a settlement that offered
amnesty to foreign and tribal fighters who had fiercely resisted
the raids, including one local leader who this week pledged loyalty
to the Taliban and an anti-Western holy war.
On
Monday, the top US military commander in Afghanistan, Lt. Gen.
David Barno, called on Pakistan to renew its military operations
in the defiant tribal regions. Criticizing Pakistan's conciliatory
approach, he said that "there are foreign fighters in those
tribal areas who will have to be killed or captured."
The
US ambassador in Kabul, Zalmay Khalilzad, has made similar critical
remarks, expressing disappointment and impatience with Pakistan's
performance. So far, US officials noted, not a single foreign
fighter has come forward to register under Pakistan's amnesty,
though officials have twice extended the deadline for them to
surrender or face military action. Last week, the cutoff date
was extended to May 8.
Pakistani
authorities have bristled at the American criticism, saying they
remain determined to uproot Islamic terrorism but must balance
the concerns of their allies with the need to respect public opinion
and keep the peace at home.
"We
are committed to the war on terror and we will pursue it to the
end," said a senior government official. "We have a
well-thought-out operational and political strategy. We need American
support, but we are also sensitive to public opinion, and we do
not want to add fuel to the extremists.
"It's
a tricky situation, and we must be nimble," he added. "If
we don't take care of our domestic constituents, we cannot deliver
to the Americans either."
Pakistan
is an impoverished Muslim country of 150 million people, rife
with religious passions and bristling with weapons. Many Pakistanis
are obsessed with national sovereignty and suspicious of Western
motives; some adhere to radical interpretations of Islam and oppose
efforts to modernize society. Tribesmen are especially protective
of their autonomy and traditional way of life.
The
agreement that was sealed at the April meeting in South Waziristan
may have rewarded a group the government had vowed to punish for
harboring foreign terrorists, but analysts say it also averted
a wider clash with restive tribesmen, a potential split in the
army and a backlash by the country's militant Islamic movement.
"The
compromise was an acknowledgment of brutal reality," said
Rifaat Hussain, an expert on Pakistani defense issues. "The
government wanted to win international credibility, but it could
not go too far without risking domestic opposition and possibly
provoking a local war. The overriding goal became not to open
another front and antagonize the tribal areas -- even at the price
of international criticism."
A
similar balancing act has blunted many of the initiatives promoted
by Pakistan's president, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, since he seized
power in October 1999. He frequently has been forced to scale
back or even abandon ambitious reform efforts, backed by Western
governments, after encountering strong resistance from political,
religious or economic groups at home.
But
the dilemma has been sharpest when it comes to the war on terrorism,
to which Musharraf has repeatedly committed his government since
the Bush administration first demanded his support after the attacks
of Sept. 11, 2001. Musharraf's decision to back the US-led effort
abruptly put the Pakistani government, which supported not only
the Taliban but also a handful of Muslim guerrilla groups fighting
Indian forces in Kashmir, at odds with many powerful segments
of society.
This
week, for example, while US officials were expressing concern
that Pakistan had backed off in the border region, the Pakistani
parliament erupted in indignation at the news that a handful of
US troops had briefly strayed across the poorly marked border
from southeastern Afghanistan.
"There
is not a single Pakistani who accepts the intrusion of a single
foreign soldier on Pakistani soil," said Aitzaz Ahsan, a
lawyer and legislator of the opposition Pakistan People's Party
in parliament. He said the government must balance the need to
combat terrorism with respect for due process, national sovereignty
and domestic traditions, including the laws that limit state intervention
in the tribal areas.
"We
cannot countenance that foreign elements take refuge in Pakistan
to destabilize Afghanistan or any other country, but we also cannot
countenance a paramilitary operation that ignores the political
system and brutalizes the human rights of Pakistani citizens,"
Ahsan said. "No one wants foreign elements in Pakistan, but
this problem cannot be left to the military alone."
Pakistan's
religious parties, whose influence has grown dramatically in recent
years and who now wield significant power in several provinces
and the national legislature, have been far harsher, repeatedly
branding Musharraf as a Western lackey.
Under
the April 24 agreement, five tribal guerrilla leaders received
full amnesties in return for agreeing to lay down their weapons.
Foreign guerrillas were allowed to remain in the tribal areas
as long as they agreed to live peacefully and register with the
government.
This
week Naik Mohammed, 28, one of the tribal leaders, received local
journalists in his village. He denied harboring any fighters from
other countries, but he described himself as an Islamic holy warrior
and said he had fought alongside the Taliban in the past.
Within
Pakistan, reaction to the agreement has been mixed. Numerous critics
said that while it temporarily pacified the tribal region, it
also may have emboldened such troublemakers as Mohammed and set
back efforts to reform the governance of tribal areas, which have
traditionally been havens for crime, smuggling, violence and primitive
forms of justice.
Some,
however, saw the agreement as something more portentous: a tactical
retreat from an anti-terrorist policy that government critics
say could lead to further military intervention in Pakistani politics.
"The
Americans are using Pakistan, and what their officials in Kabul
are asking of us is the road to suicide," said Sen. Khurshid
Ahmad, an Islamic scholar and member of the country's largest
Islamic party. "We do not condone terrorism, but the Americans
are trying to persuade us to kill our own people. If the war on
terror leads the army to carve out an institutional role in politics,
it will be bad for Pakistan and bad for America too."
- Washington
Post
