Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

The president needs to re-think his Pakistan policy

Yes, Pakistan can be a troublesom­e partner, but the United States should not forget that it has been a reliable ally for 70 years, explains Pakistani native S. AMJAD HUSSAIN

- S. Amjad Hussain is an emeritus professor of surgery and humanities at the University of Toledo (aghaji@bex.net). This piece was first published in The Blade, the Post-Gazette’s sister newspaper in Toledo, Ohio.

President Donald Trump has chastised Pakistan for not doing enough to combat terrorism and has withheld military aid to the country. At issue is the U.S. perception that Pakistan provides sanctuary to the Afghan Taliban, who are fighting NATO and Afghan government forces in Afghanista­n. It is true to a degree, but not entirely.

Mr. Trump convenient­ly forgets (or is ignorant of) the long history of Pakistan’s relationsh­ip with the United States. Since the creation of Pakistan in 1947, it has aligned itself with American interests, often at high cost. During the Cold War, Pakistan was the bulwark of American opposition to the spread of communism and Soviet influence in South Asia. Pakistan joined agreements and alliances forged by the United States to prevent their spread.

When the former Soviet Union invaded Afghanista­n in 1979, the United States and European countries were caught by surprise. For 10 years, Pakistan funneled Western weapons and supplies to the largely jihadist forces that ultimately pushed the Soviets out of Afghanista­n. Then all the Westerners picked up and left, leaving Pakistan to contend with the aftermath of the war. It had to care for 4 million Afghan refugees while contending with an army of well-trained, armedto-the-teeth jihadis who had territoria­l ambitions.

When America and other Western countries were arming the Afghan mujahideen, another import was arriving in Pakistan on the wings of Saudi petrodolla­rs: the cruel, extremist influence of Wahhabi Islam. Thousands of religious schools opened where young boys were trained to hate everyone who did not subscribe to the Saudis’ radical, intolerant version of Islam. Many of those boys ended up as cannon fodder in the war in Afghanista­n.

The current religious strife and militancy in both Afghanista­n and Pakistan can be directly traced to the Afghan conflict. The war in Afghanista­n ended in 1989, and 30-odd years later Pakistan is still suffering the ill effects of that war and the poisonous largesse of Saudi Arabia.

Another part of the dynamic is Pakistan’s preoccupat­ion with India, and vice versa. Pakistan’s India-centric foreign policy has diverted a large chunk of national resources to defense against India, which, incidental­ly, helps maintain the Pakistani military’s control over the country’s political system.

Muslim-majority Pakistan and Hindu-majority India have fought three inconclusi­ve wars and many skirmishes since they separated in 1947, principall­y over the territory of Kashmir. Kashmir is now under Indian control, even though, being majority Muslim, it should have become part of Pakistan when the countries were partitione­d.

The former Soviet Union, at the behest of India, vetoed every U.N. Security Council resolution that suggested practical steps to resolve the festering conflict. More recently, President Barrack Obama tasked special envoy Richard Holbrooke with tackling the issue, but, in response to vigorous protests by India, the initiative was dropped.

Pakistan had hoped that, after the defeat of the Soviet Union, Afghanista­n would be a friendly and grateful neighbor. Instead, Afghanista­n looked toward India for economic and military aid, giving the Pakistan the sense of being bordered by hostile neighborso­n both sides.

The Pakistani military is on friendly terms with the Afghan Taliban and expects that in a post-America and post-NATO Afghanista­n, the Talibanwil­l rule the country. Pakistan would like a friendly Afghanista­n. The current Afghan government’s tilt toward India precludes that possibilit­y. Mr. Trump’s active encouragem­ent of India to get involved in Afghanista­n isn’t helping the situation.

What will happen if the Trump administra­tion makesperma­nent its suspension of U.S. aid to Pakistan? It’s not going to hurt Pakistan much, but it will damageU.S. interests. China is all too eager to step into the void and expand its influence in South Asia. It already is investing$55 billion to improve Pakistan’s infrastruc­ture.

Meanwhile, the 16-year war in Afghanista­n remains unwinnable. No surges of NATO troops can alter its inevitable conclusion. The sooner that the United States admits that entering the Afghan quagmire was a mistake and gets out, the better it will be for the Afghan people and for Pakistan. And then let the chips fall where they may. If much of Afghanista­n is destined to be ruled by the fanatical Taliban, so be it.

For all its myriad faults, Pakistan has been a reliable ally of the United States since 1947. So the United States, while demanding Pakistan do more to control the Taliban, also should take into account the difficulti­es Pakistan faces, living as it does in avery nasty neighborho­od.

What will happen if the Trump administra­tion makes permanent its suspension of U.S. aid to Pakistan? It’s not going to hurt Pakistan much, but it will damage U.S. interests.

 ??  ??

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States