Within about a fortnight of the US president declaring that Pakistan was "cooperating with the US in the global war on terrorism," Paul Wolfowitz, US deputy defence secretary, sharply indicted Islamabad for turning a blind eye to the renewed US-led drive to hunt down Muslim extremists on Afghanistan's border area.
In an interview published by Hong Kong's Far Eastern Economic Review he bluntly stated that Pakistan was failing to crush the Taliban, something that was "testing Washington's patience." In his reported statement Wolfowitz also attempted to make a fine distinction between the Al Qaeda and the Taliban implying that while Pakistan was cooperative in the hunt for Al Qaeda cadres it was dragging its feet where the Taliban remnants were concerned.
What had even a touch of blackmail about it was Wolfowitz's reference to the recent disclosures about A.Q. Khan's perceived involvement in nuclear non-proliferation.
He said that the international community's acceptance of the act of pardon granted by President Gen Pervez Musharraf was a "kind of IOU" and in return for that there had to be (on Pakistan's part) "a full accounting of everything." In this context Wolfowitz spoke of the possibility of Washington increasing its demands "in return for downplaying A.Q. Khan's scandal."
The observations by Wolfowitz came as a shock to Pakistan and the subsequent clarification issued by US administration did not quite abate the hurt they had caused. In fact, the clarification did not quite deny what Wolfowitz had reportedly said.
In any case the clarification was attributed to Michael Krepon of the Washington-based Stimson Centre but was meant to reflect the US administration's concern at Pakistan's possible reaction to the publication of the deputy defence secretary's views.
The clarification affirmed that there had been "better cooperation" on Pakistan's part but Washington expected Islamabad to do even better. It also implied that in spite of Dr A.Q. Khan's "admission", no nuclear-related sanctions had been planned against Pakistan. Somewhat mystifyingly it added that "it (the disclosure of proliferation) continues to be a bit of an issue." Ambassadors Robert Oakley and William Milam, both South Asian experts, endorsed the views expressed in the clarification.
Not surprisingly, Foreign Minister Mahmood Kasuri promptly rejected the charges against Pakistan contained in Wolfowitz's statement and said that if the remarks had at all been made they were "inappropriate and unacceptable." The matter would presumably be further clarified when the US secretary of state Colin Powell has had his meetings with President Gen Pervez Musharraf and Pakistani officials during his visit.
Unfortunately, Washington sometimes tends to have a rather myopic approach to problems arising out of its foreign policy and their implications for its allies. From the outset Pakistan has without coming under any outside pressure been cooperative in the US-led war against terror.
The US assistant secretary for South Asian affairs, Ms Christina Rocca, in her testimony before the US senate foreign relations committee only the other day declared that the US recognized Pakistan as a "crucial ally" in the international war against terror and jointly with the US had helped to strengthen border security vis-a-vis Afghanistan. She specifically acknowledged Pakistan's cooperation in apprehending Al Qaeda and Taliban operatives and in unearthing the A.Q. Khan's "proliferation network".
In the same statement she announced economic and defence aid to Pakistan amounting to $600 million. She also indicated that the process of rapprochement between Pakistan and India had been launched with the US's active involvement as part of its Next Steps in Strategic Partnership (NSSP). However, disregarding what Ms Rocca had said before the US senate foreign relations committee, Mr Wolfowitz chose to say what he reportedly did in his interview to the Hong Kong weekly.
The Americans appear to be much disappointed for not being able to establish their operational bases in Pakistan's tribal belt (or in Quetta) for their 'renewed drive' to crush Taliban since Islamabad does not want any foreign military forces to operate from its soil. The Pakistani establishment would want all such operations to be conducted by its own forces and the foreign (in this case, American) forces not to spill over into Pakistani territory.
The American administration has lately stepped up its operations in Afghanistan out of its anxiety to capture Osama bin Laden by whatever means possible before the presidential election due later this year. Reports carried by the western Press suggest that according to American intelligence Osama bin Laden could be in a sanctuary within about a hundred miles from Pakistan.
A special task force (Task Force 121) comprising CIA operatives and specially trained military detachments under the command of Admiral William McRaven has been deployed to hunt down Osama bin Laden.
McRaven was in command of the US military contingent which captured President Saddam Hussein in Iraq. The Americans apparently believe that their chances of success would vastly improve if they were to operate from bases inside Pakistan. So far Islamabad has been firmly against any such activity.
The US media, possibly out of a sense of frustration, has even expressed concern about what they call President Musharraf's "reliability" in the war against terrorism. The New York Times in an editorial has said that even though the US administration has "rewarded" the General and Pakistan for their part in the war against terror, "Pakistan has been unable to secure its borders against a resurgent Taliban..." The Washington Times has been even more critical and, inter alia, said that (President Musharraf's) deal with the MMA "to legitimise his continuance in office until 2007 and his rewriting of the Constitution... has been at the price of further empowering a movement that seeks Taliban-style rule for both Pakistan and neighbouring Afghanistan."
Washington should be expected to be aware of the complex situation confronting Gen Pervez Musharraf as a result of his involvement in the US-led war against terror. The American establishment including the so-called experts who advise the US state department on its South Asian policy frequently grumble about Pakistan's "failure" to contain religious extremism.
Several previous governments in Pakistan have encouraged the conservatism and the legacy cannot be eliminated overnight. The general has a commitment to moderation and liberalism and in the years to come Pakistan could hope to be a more open society. There is already an expanding middle class which favours liberalization.
The Americans should also not expect the conservatism prevailing in the tribal belt on Afghan border to disappear easily. The different ethnic groups (e.g. Pakhtun and non-Pakhtun) in the tribal area have their own laws and customs and it is only with economic reform and education that these customs and laws can be replaced with the laws of the country and that would take time.
The outsiders, specially the Americans as they are present in the area, have to understand that for centuries a strong religious and cultural nexus has existed between the different tribes of the Pakistani tribal belt and their counterparts inside Afghanistan.
A large section of the tribal population is traditionally conservative, strongly supportive of a Taliban-style of governance. It is unrealistic for the West to expect that President Pervez Musharraf can, in no time, bring about dramatic changes in the complexion and perceptions of the population there.