Dr Farrukh Saleem

The writer is an Islamabad-based

freelance columnist

farrukh15@hotmail.com

President General Musharraf has saved Pakistan but had to become the West's new darling. The question is how long would this honeymoon last. Bush hasn't stopped lauding Musharraf for the past four weeks. Blair has promised to "back Pakistan in its negotiations with the IMF". Koizumi (Japan is Pakistan's largest bilateral lender) has been rescheduling our debts even before they come due. September 11 has changed so much. There are more than 2,000 Marriotts around the world the new center of the universe, however, is the Islamabad Marriott.

Four weeks of American bombing and I have concluded that it is 75% ego related, 10% groundwork for a post-Taliban government, 5% live training for US military personnel, 5% teaching future terrorists a lesson and 5% get-Osama undertaking. The military campaign has actually gone far ahead of the political one.

As far as the removal of sanctions is concerned, we have been here before. In April 1979, President Carter had imposed military as well as economic sanctions "discovering that Islamabad is secretly constructing a facility to enrich uranium". In December 1979, sanctions were waived as a "reward for Pakistan's anti-Soviet efforts in Afghanistan (although Pakistan continued pursuing its nuclear programme)".

On 15 February 1989, the last Soviet soldier walked out of Afghanistan. In 1990, Pressler Amendment sanctions were imposed on Pakistan. On 12 September 2001, President Musharraf pledged "'unstinted cooperation". On September 22, President Bush issued Presidential Determination No 2001-28 stating "I hereby determine and certify to the Congress that the application to .....Pakistan of the sanctions and prohibitions contained in subparagraphs (B), (C), and (G) of section 102(b)(2) of the Arms Export Control Act would not be in the national security interests of the United States."

Is America selfish? Well, American foreign policy has at least four main characteristics. First, it is strictly based on American national interests. Second, it is devoid of emotionalism. Third, it is devoid of morality. Fourth, it is devoid of ideology. Our foreign policy, on the other hand, rests on two main pillars. First, it's India-centric. Second, it's based on emotionalism.

Between 1976 and 1985, the US Congress adopted at least three amendments to the Foreign Assistance Act of 1976 (all had an impact on Pakistan). They are: Symington, Glen and Pressler. In 1976, Symington Amendment was adopted. The amendment "prohibits most US economic and military assistance to any country delivering or receiving nuclear enrichment equipment, material, or technology not safeguarded by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)." In 1977, the Glenn Amendment prohibited "US assistance to any non-nuclear weapon state (as defined by the Non-Proliferation Treaty), that conducts a nuclear explosion." In 1985, Pakistan-specific Pressler Amendment "bans most economic and military assistance to Pakistan unless the President can certify on an annual basis that Pakistan does not possess a nuclear device....."

On 28 September 2001, the Security Council unanimously approved a US sponsored anti-terrorism resolution. Under the terms of the Resolution "all States should prevent and suppress the financing of terrorism, as well as criminalise the willful provision or collection of funds for such acts."

Anyone who reads the 1,951-word Resolution is bound to infer that at least half of those words are directed at Pakistan. On October 2, one day after the suicide bombing in the Indian-administered Kashmir, the White House announced, "We very strongly condemn the attack today in Kashmir, as we have previous attacks." Colin Powell said, "it was clearly an act of terror."

On October 24, the US House of Representatives passed a bipartisan 'anti-terror bill'. In essence, sanctions are waived when the US determines that sanctions are not serving US national interests. They come back because our interests no longer overlap with US interests and we do things that are against US laws. Symington, Glen and Pressler continue to be the law.

Sanctions have been waived once again. Would this time be any different? Only if we are willing to change. Only if national interests of both the US and Pakistan continue to converge. US foreign policy is based on national interests. Ours is not. We haven't yet determined as to what our national interest is. There is nothing selfish or emotional about it all.

The new talk at the US Department of Defence is that of "revolving alliances". Forging an alliance with Uzbekistan and Tajikistan, for instance, to straighten out the Taliban and then moving on to forming new alliances to take care of problem areas elsewhere. Russia, a latecomer to the new war on terrorism, must have been assured that the US will not take Central Asian republics away from Russia's sphere of influence (read: US troops are there only temporarily).

The waters around Pakistan are littered with war ships. Freight companies don't like it a bit. Our export orders are being canceled. There's going to be a Rs 50 billion revenue shortfall. Risk premiums for Foreign Direct Investment are going to be prohibitively high. Additionally, five million individual human tragedies are just waiting to unfold across our western border.

Make no mistake, Americans are master negotiators and they have elevated the art of negotiation to a science form. They are not going to waste their taxpayer's money. Over the medium to long term, we will not get a penny more than what we can negotiate out of them. And, we have always been the worst of negotiators.

Over the short term, Musharraf has been lifted to the status of a friend. There is realisation that Musharraf's hands would have to be strengthened within his own country. The American way to do that is a hundred million here and a hundred million there. In that sense, these tranches are actually in America's own interest. We must not dream of billions coming our way from any direction (read: common Pakistani's life isn't about to change for the better).

Two weeks ago, The New York Times was saying that America has gained access to bases in Uzbekistan and Tajikistan and thus may not need Pakistan. That has to be a bargaining ploy. The Khanabad Military Base in Uzbekistan can host the 10th Mountain Division but where do they go from there. Just look at the regional map. How can US Special Operation Forces (SOF) target Kandahar without securing a berth in Balochistan? The Shamsi Airfield doesn't have a substitute. For carrier-based aircraft from the USS Enterprise or USS Carl Vinson the best choices are PAF Shahbaz (FOB), PAF Pasni (FOB) or PAF Mianwali (MOB). For special operations into Kabul, PAF Kohat (satellite) or PAF Peshawar (MOB; Northern Air Command HQ) have no substitutes. During the upcoming Afghan winter operating out of Khanabad would become quite impractical.

Would we be better off financially after the war? Not a chance. This war, like most others, shall have no winners. Everyone looses. But, if we hadn't picked the right side in the current conflict India would have turned us into another Afghanistan. What do we really want from the US? First, the Patriot air defence missile-system to protect our air bases. Second, dozens of billions of dollars. Third, help against India. We will be disappointed on the second and the

third count because we are over-pricing ourselves. This courtship, however, can be different from the ones that we had before only if we are willing to take emotionalism out of our foreign policy and work on building shared national interests.