Fed up with accusations it allows Taliban fighters to cross into Afghanistan, Pakistan offered on Monday to erect a fence between the two countries to prevent incursions from either side.
Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf made the offer during talks in New York with U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Pakistani Foreign Minister Khursheed Mehmood Kasuri said after the 75-minute meeting.
(...)
"Pakistan is prepared to raise a fence so that we can put an end to these allegations," Kasuri told reporters, without specifying exactly where and when a fence could be erected, how long it would be, or who would pay for it.
"Pakistan can do nothing more than that to prevent incursions," he said of proposals for a fence, adding: "We are fed up of people who say we have to do more."
Relations between Afghanistan and Pakistan have been strained because of complaints from the government in Kabul that Islamabad could do more to stop Taliban fighters infiltrating from Pakistan's tribal areas.
The United States has also wanted to see Pakistan act against Taliban insurgents harassing U.S. forces in Afghanistan in the run up to parliamentary elections on Sept. 18, which are being held nearly four years after U.S.-led troops toppled the Taliban government for giving refuge to Osama bin Laden.
Kasuri said Rice "heard out the offer" to erect a fence, adding that she had been "very appreciative" of the role played by Pakistan before the elections in Afghanistan.
Pakistan has sent thousands of troops to its western border to choke off a Taliban-led insurgency in the weeks before the poll.
I say that President Musharraf's offer was sarcastic for reasons that should be come obvious. First, I'll get into a touch of history.
Following the establishment of the Taliban government, and particularly after 9/11, the United States government was frequently accused of having "created" the Taliban. This is true, but only to a very, very limited extent.
The United States never claimed to have particularly strong diplomatic relations with, or intelligence about, Afghanistan. From the toppling of the Afghan monarchy in 1973 in a Soviet-sponsored coup, through to the outright Soviet invasion in 1979, the United States knew little (and cared less) about in-country developments. Pakistan, on the other hand, was more than interested, with it being next door and all.
Following the '79 invasion, the US government became very interested in developments indeed. The saw the opportunity to inflict the kind of pain on the Soviets that the Americans suffered in Vietnam. It was more than a little problematic that the Americans knew not what the fuck was going on, or who the major players were in chaotic land. In short, the United States were more than eager to finance the "Soviet Vietnam" but didn't know how, or to whom the money should go.
Pakistan knew. Almost to the person. The task was therefore given to the Inter-Service Intelligence (ISI) agency of Pakistan. Tht money was funnelled to the various factions of the
mujahadeen (or "holy warriors") of Pakistan's choosing. What the Carter and Reagan adminisrations did not understand was that the national interest of Pakistan was at odds with that of America.
As my more scholarly readers may know (which is pretty condesending coming from a high school dropout), Pakistan is neighboured by two hostile nations with srong central governments. These being Iran and India. They had no interest in a third. Accordingly, Pakistan wished to see a prolonged civil war where there would be no clear winner which could then further threaten Pakistan's national interest. Conversely, the US merely wanted to bloody the Soviets up some.
The ISI proceeded to fund the most fanatical of the insurgents, the Taliban, with US arms and money. The theory was that if they won a decisive victory, they would plunge the multi-ethic country into such internal chaos that they couldn't threaten Pakistan.
It worked for a long time, too. The Soviets withdrew their forces in 1990, yet the civil war did not end until 2001. At best, the Taliban controlled about 80% of the country. From October - December, 2001 the United States, along with the Uzbec national Northern Allience, dismantled the Taliban.
A number of other issues lead up to the current border issue. The Taliban were largely educated in Pakistani madrasas. These madrasas - Wahabbi fundamentalist institutons financed with Saudi money - teach nothing but rote memorazation of the Koran. Their students learn nothing else, they are bred fanatics.
Secondly, only three countries recognized the Taliban government in Kabul; Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. This bred a hunger for foreign capital within the Afghan government, a hunger Osama bin-Laden was more than eager to fill. Upon being expelled from Sudan, al-Qaeda essentially bought off the Taliban.
Finally, the Taliban's backers in the ISI and the upper echelons of the Pakastani military are true believers in the Taliban cause. I've long suggested that the greatest terrorist threat in the future does not come from the Middle East, it comes from Pakistan. The political / military establishment in Islamabad (which are, at present, one in the same) were also largely educated in the madrasas. This is an important point, and one I'll return to soon.
The "fence" that the Pakastanis are offering to "build" would certainly traverse the Northwest Frontier Province of Pakistan, which encompasses most of the Afghan / Pakistan border. This is where most observers believe that the remnants of the Taliban and al-Qaeda are currently hiding. There's a challenge presented here, as well. That province is utterly un-influenced by the central Pakistani government. There remains some question as to whether they even
recognize the Islamabad government. This is not to disapaage Islamabad, the British couldn't control the province, either. Oh, neither could the Persians. The Northwest Frontier Province has alwas been a "no-man's land" ruled soley by tribal law.
Yes, several have suggested that Islamabad move in militarily and "assert control." This would be a suicide mission, both militarily and politically.
No one has ever conqered the province and it would be folly to try. Also, most of the military establishment supports not only the NWFP's "independence", but shares their religious fervor, which is similar to the Taliban's. It should be noted that the majority of "Honor killings" and religiously inspired violence against women occurs in the NWFP.
Even if Islamabad COULD impose its will on the territory, there's no indication that it WOULD. One should also do well to ask whether a Pakistani civil war (with no guarantees as to who would win) is in anyone's interest. This is another point that I'll return to.
Princess Cat closes her post with this point;
Well, you know, that is all well and good President Musharraf but half-ass is still half-ass. Pakistan is going to be more a part of the terrorism problem than a solution so long as there are militant madrasas within its borders. Stomp your feet, stick out your lower lip, whine and cry, dance around it all you like, thems the facts. And they ain't goin away... no matter how many fences you build.
Unlike most bloggers who deal with foreign policy, Princess Cat makes an excellent point. A great percentge of the problem resides within the madrasas. Unfortunately, this - in a particularlyt South Asian way, leads to a bigger problem.
Pakistan has the unfortunate problem of neighbouring its blood enemy, India. India has roughly ten times the number of people as does Pakistan. The military and economic disaparities are more daunting still. Given those disparities, most of Pakistan's economic resources go to national defense. So bad is the self defense issue that Pakistan spends a far greater percentage of GDP on the miltary than the United States did during the Cold War.
The most tragic consequence of this is that is no public education system in Pakistan and never has been. There are private schools for the elite and madrasas, and very, very little in between. India, with a functioning public education system, still has an illiteracy rate of 47%. God only knows what it is in Pakistan.
If Westerners like Princess Cat and I are serious about ending terror from Pakistan, then we have to get serious about education in Pakistan. There are two ways of doing this. Either the West can get serious about resolving the India / Pakistan dispute over Kashmir, or we can send every man woman and child in Pakistan to Harvard. Either option is cheaper than a ground war in Pakistan, which I'm certain is coming.
Princess Cat made the point that "but half-ass is still half-ass." A more appropriate comment would be that politics is politics, wherever you go. You cannot suggest dismantaling the madrasas without an alternative, particularly given the political and religious support they enjoy on the ground. This would be like suggesting that President Bush level sanctions against Saudi Arabia (which, after all, finances a good percent of the world's terror) with the price of oil over $60 a barrell. Sure, it would sound good on television, but it would be economic and political suicide.
And in Pakistan, it would be ACTUAL suicide. One should always remember that, in Pakistan, changes in government occur at gunpoint more often than not. We are asking General Musharraf to do far more than we would ask of almost any leader, to risk his life on the whims of a foreign government that are directly contrast to his national - and personal - interests. Some might point out, as I have, that Pakistan created the Taliban in the first place. And this would be true, but for the fact that it was a policy that continued under military and elected governments alike.
More than anyone else, Pervez Musharraf has been the bravest warrior in the war against terror. I can think of no other coaltion leader that has faced as many erious assaination attempts as he has. I can think of no other leader that has acted as contrary to public opinion than he has (remember, bin-Laden has about 60% approval in Pakistan.) I can think of no leader who's downfall would be a more serious impediment to the war on terror than Musharraf. As much as the RNC would have you believe differently, if John Kerry won, he would have instituted sharia law in Baltimore. Musharraf faces such an opposition daily.
Imagine President Bush facing the very real opposition that President Musharraf does, where a strong plurality of his people want not only to defeat him, but to KILL him. How well does anyone think that W. would hold up to THAT scrunity?
It is long past time that people stop demanding things of countries like Pakistan and start doing things to help them achieve what we want. It won't be cheap and it won't be easy, but if General Musharraf falls, chances are that it won't be Thomas Jefferson replacing him. In fact, it would be someone who looks a lot like Mullah Omar. And a Mullah Omar with nuclear weapons.
And that is something that should always be kept in mind.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm really bad at courtin' a woman who has caught my eye, aren't I? I realize that I'm far more likely to get a Swift Kick to the testicles than a handjob this way, but I can't help myself.
Please help.
Permalink
