The Pakistani Spectator

Having observed Washington for over two decades, I have learned that mostly its Pakistani ruling class’s selfish and power-clinging attitude that make Pakistani diplomats’ job of improving Pakistani image a difficult to impossible one. It’s generally the leadership in Islamabad, which by preserving its personal interests, indirectly encourages every kind of organization, including some of the official of Amnesty International (AI), to target Pakistani national interests. For example, a couple of months ago in a seminar at Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, T. Kumar, Advocacy Director for Asia & Pacific Amnesty International USA, mentioned Pakistan’s abusing American weapons in Balochistan, the largest Pakistan province.

Keeping in mind that this gathering took place for discussing about the future of democracy in Pakistan, featuring findings of the Democracy International U.S. observer delegation, I stated to Kumar that given that the anger of Pakistanis against Musharraf’s rule was universal in the country, why would the army use American weapons only in Balochistan and not in other Pakistani provinces.

I believe there are enough number of Balouch, or even Balouch regiments in Pakistani army who would love to let President Musharraf see the exit sooner rather than late, if he were not comfortable with Balouch just because of their nationality. Being a ‘Baiea’ (a derogatory term used among Punjabis for Urdu speaking Pakistanis who migrated from India and they are generally looked down by some Punjabis and are systematically discriminated in mainstream Punjabi establishment for being better in talking and inept once it comes to joining the Pakistani army for the purpose of fighting with Indians), Musharraf should be more considerate toward Balouchis who too have been ignored — far more than even ‘Bhaeiza’ in Pakistan, unfortunately.

Even though Musharraf is, hopefully, packing his bags, people ought to give him some credit for initiating more economic development projects in Baluchistan than any previous Pakistani rulers. By Blaming Musharraf for killing Balouchis, Kumar manifested his lack of understanding of marginalized communities like ‘bhaieza’ Balouchis and Sindihis, and Musharraf’s natural sympathy toward these victimized nationalities or tribes.

At any rate, I also stated to Kumar that some Pakistani officials, though not very often in public, allege that it is India is secretly arming some separatist Baloch to create trouble in Pakistan. Because of the Kargil crisis, India perceived Musharraf as a trouble maker who wanted to prove to his dominant Punjabi colleagues that he is not less capable or advantageous than any other macho Punjabi generals. India, most probably, started arming some ‘freedom fighter Balouchis’ right after Musharraf came into power.

On my part, knowing Kumar’s knowledge of Pak army’s bad deeds, I assumed he knew the factors behind the use of American weapons for the killing of ‘innocent Baloch’, I asked Kumar if India was really giving training to some Baloch rebels and, thus, forcing Pak army to go after them. I also asked him if the Pakistani army just liked to test the capability of American weapons by abusing them on Balouchis, and not Pushtoon, Punjabi, and Sindhis in Pakistan.

Obviously Kumar knows well that there is a very clear difference between Musharraf’s civilian foes, who love to come to the streets against him all over the country, and some Baloch separatists, who get strenuous training for fighting against the Pakistani army and blowing up pipe lines and other government and civilian installations.

For the purpose of full disclosure about my views of Musharraf, hopefully, Kumar remembered that a few months ago I told him in his office at the AI –when he arranged one of the several anti-Musharraf Pakistani-Americans meetings– that Musharraf deserved to be prosecuted for deforming the constitution for the mere purpose of perpetuating his stay in power without properly getting the changes through the Pakistani parliament.

My second question to Kumar was that if an act of some crooked Pakistanis of stealing Pakistanis’ money and transferring and depositing it in personal account abroad like Switzerland and UAE could be defined as the violation of human rights of poor Pakistanis.

We love to trash Pakistani generals, which they deserve anyway for never winning a war with India despite making fool of Pakistanis by wasting their huge economic resources, but we forgot that every Pakistani politician is not Imran Khan, a very conscientious man who loves to live in his own utopia, far apart from Pakistan’s corrupt political realities.

Talking about corruption in Pakistan, on February 20th at National Press Club in Washington, I asked the same kind of question to Mr. Mark Siegel who gave a talk on Ms. Benizir Bhutto (BB)’s new book, named Reconciliation: The Legacy of Benazir Bhutto. I told him about a picture on the front page of Washington Post where a few poor Sindhis were digging the grave of late Benizir Bhutto in her hometown while wearing slippers, for they were too poor to afford themselves any kind of sandals or shoes.

I told Siegel that the dirt poor Sindhis are not interested learning that Benizir and Zardari are known to own a five star hotel in Dubai, UAE. Neither they are interested that the couple is alleged making $1.5 billion in their ‘honorable efforts’ of helping these poor people to have better lives. Then I suggested to Siegel to ignore Pakistani Courts decisions against Bhutto because they could be politically motivated and corrupt as well. I asked if he would allege the Swiss Court– which has accused Benizir and Zardahri of “stashing 60 million Swiss francs ($55 million) in the Alpine country.”—was biased against Benizir Zardari.

Though Bhutto and Zardari have always denied the charges, the fact that Swiss Court didn’t charge Mr. Siegel or me or anybody else in the crowd he was addressing to in National Press Club, means that the Swiss Court has some substantial evidence against Zardari who “stands accused of taking commissions paid into his Geneva accounts,” which have been frozen. According to Court documents, “Mr. Zardari’s name appears on each page as the beneficial owner of offshore companies.”

Last year, during her last Washington trip, the late BB gave a talk at the Middle Eastern Institute. I asked her if she had made people believe that there was some substance in the corruption cases filed against her that made her strike a deal with Musharraf. If Sharif brothers were willing to confront Musharraf in the courts of law, rather than breaking any deal, why would not BB do the same? I got exactly the same cookie cutter answer from Mr. Siegel as I got from late BB, except her answer in the presence of her husband Zardari was more comprehensive because of her superior knowledge of Pakistani politics.

They are all politically motivated cases. Even former Pakistani PM Nawaz Sharif has acknowledged that he filed the corruption cases against BB as revenge, Siegel said.

Coming back to Kumar, from my question, he seemly felt getting caught off guard in his subtle efforts of gaining his audiences’ support for stopping U.S arms supply to Pakistan through maligning the Pakistani army.

In response to my question, Kumar became defensive. “I am not an Indian,” by throwing his hands in the air, Kumar declared immediately. His statement seemed to be commission of his guilt, but it was especially irrelevant because no one in the room suggested he was from India. It’s just his name that reflects Hindu background, but it does not mean he is anti-Pakistani military, I guess.

After explaining his Siri Lankan background, Kumar answered my question by saying he did not deal with intelligence matters, thus he didn’t know who arms the Bloch rebels fighting against the Pakistani army. Well, Kumar’s intelligence source gave him partial and one-sided information of Pak army’s abuse of American weapons against innocent Bloch, one gathers.

Let’s see who knows the source that equipped some Pakistani Balochs against the army. One imagines the guy representing Pakistan in Washington has to know and has the courage to disclose who is fooling around in the largest province, Baluchistan, of his country. We consider Pakistani generals very bold and fearless people who love to conquer their own country repeatedly.

On February 13th, The Central Asia-Caucasus Institute and the South Asia Studies Program at SAIS John Hopkins arranged a seminar about Gawadar Deep Sea Port, a New Transportation Hub for Central Asia where Mahmud Ali Durrani, a retired general and an Ambassador of Pakistan to the United Sates, gave a presentation.

In that seminar, I made a very strong statement against Pakistani and especially Punjabi exploitation of Balouchistan, who provide natural gas to almost whole country, except to themselves.

Then I asked Ambassador Durrani as to why while average Bloch didn’t seem to meet their very basic needs of life, but rebel Balochs get war training, money, and above all motivation to fight with the Pakistani army. “ Kami, I would rather not address this issue in this meeting,” Ambassador Durrani replied.

Its obvious that in Washington defending a army general rule in Islamabad, especially for a retired general in Washington, is too challenging a task to leave any energy left to point finger toward India in for supporting Baloch rebels in Pakistan.

I asked Ambassador Durrani a second question about a piece written in NY Times on February 12th, criticizing the Pakistani government for not going after Islamic terrorists with full force in Wazirstan. I was told that though my question was about a very timely matter, it was not very relevant with the discussions in progress.

It’s a pity for Pakistan that Kumar of AI has to share the intelligence of Pak army’s abusing American arms against Baloch in a meeting designed to discussing the post-election situation and the implications for the future of democracy in Pakistan. But our gallant general in Washington wanted to stay a one hundred percent diplomat.

It’s only an army rule in Islamabad that could prevent Pakistani ambassador Durrani from giving the Pakistani side of the story of an Indian act of arming some Pakistani Baloch rebels against the Pakistani army while he was talking about a matter that was one hundred percent about Balochistan itself.

Pakistanis diplomats’ limitation of giving their country a positive profile in Washington is a challenging task and every diplomat knows about it. For example, in October last year while addressing to a roomful concerned media and some others interested people at the Washington Council on Foreign Relations, Pakistani Foreign Secretary Riaz Khan said while there seems to be a deeper realization of the importance of strategic relationships between Washington and Islamabad, the Pakistani peculiar situation of its army’s involvement [in the civilian matters] can’t be divorced from realities on the ground as one of the reasons of having hostile attitude toward Pakistan among Washington’s opinion makers.

Mr. Khan gave this frank assessment in the response of this reporter’s concerns that either ‘you guys’ (Pakistani foreign service staff) are not doing a good job in defending Pakistani position on this so-called war on terror, or comparing to India, Pakistani

Islamic identity and/or its dictatorship– neither of them favored by most Americans– are the factors making Pakistan seen as a bad player in South Asia.

This writer challenged Mr. Khan. I asked why his ministry has not been able to remind Americans that the current Taliban and their previous generation of people like Hickmat Gulbadeen used to be called Mujaheddin. In addition, these fighters used to be heroes of

President Reagan and of the many Americans, whereas now, when Pakistan had made herself a very unstable country in meeting some U.S. foreign policy objectives, most observers in Washington don’t like to mention Pakistan more than merely an American partner in the war on terror.

This writer felt forced to ask the question of Pakistani foreign service’s competency because every single question to Mr. Khan was hostile toward Pakistan, giving the impression that Pakistan were fighting a war against America rather than that of against Al-Qaeeda and Taliban. Unfortunately, all the questions were about either

Pakistan being undemocratic or being complacent toward Al-Qaeeda.

For example, Ambassador William Courtney raised his doubts to Mr. Khan about the safety of Pakistani nuclear assets. More power to ‘Muslim’ Zia Mian of Princeton University who loves to call Pakistani bomb an Islamic one!

Former Congressman named, Jim Moody, asked to Mr. Khan as to why the Pakistani army was wasting 90% of American aid for it weaponry systems when poverty is so prevalent in Pakistan.

Mr. Khan addressed those questions thoughtfully and thoroughly, stating that democracy was not a formula applicable immediately in Pakistan. “It’s rather a process that would take some time,” he said.

Mr. Khan also corrected Mr. Moody by telling that the U.S. aid to Pakistan is divided in half for military and half for economic development purposes.

But somehow, no one in the room seemed to be listening to Mr. Khan. For example, Ms. Pamela Constable of Washington Post was the last one to ask a question to Mr. Khan. She asked why during the election season Pakistan was pausing in its war against Taliban. Mr. Khan’s answer of constant deployment of Pakistani troops against Taliban during the election of General Musharraf was very precise: “There is no pause on Pakistani part against the war on terror during the election of Mr. Musharraf,” Mr. Khan declared.

Well, at the termination of that meeting this journalist approached to Ms. Constable and said that its our American government which is supporting general Musharraf, and we all know that merely American help to the General is not sufficient for him to survive politically in Pakistan. And during the election the General has to pay full attention for keeping himself in power first and then he could fully focus on the war known in Pakistan as a war being fought for America by the Pakistani army for very cheap.

I told Ms. Constable that she knew that there was no way she would hear this answer from Mr. Khan, but all Pakistani observers in Washington know that currently a weak Musharraf is very busy in battling for keeping himself in the game.

At that point, a Pakistani journalist interjected his opinion in the reasoning by saying that the reason Ms. Constable asked that question because she didn’t know the answer.

This journalist replied by blurting out that, being an intelligent and informed woman, Ms. Pamela knows the very difficult situation Pakistan is going through. However, her question to Mr. Khan reflects the normal lack of empathy toward Pakistan in Washington.

At the end of the Friday meeting at Carnegie Endowment, Kumar was asked another loaded question by Dr. Wasi Khan, the Pakistani-American Chancellor of East West University, Chicago, IL. about the violation of Kashmiris’ human rights living in Indian controlled Kashmir.

Kumar said he was up against arms against Indian diplomats in Washington for protecting Kashmiris human rights in Indian part of Kashmir. I guess, Kumar has arranged many Kashmiris-American meetings at AI in Washington against India human rights violations as he was doing against Musharraf’s dictatorship.

One wonders if there is any pro-Pakistani voice in Washington to make the country’s case as a state that has been trying its best to secure American interests in South Asia, even on the cost of its own Pakistani people.

The answer could be found in a statement given by Kumar in the Friday seminar. “ With the new Pakistani government we are going to be disappointed very soon.” It means soon the season of criticizing the future government in Islamabad is arriving, so there is not much room to give Pakistan a positive profile in Washington, unfortunately.

Nevertheless, it’s not Kumar nor any Indian lobby in Washington that damages most Pakistani national interests in Washington.

It’s the disappointing performances of various Pakistani rulers who love to curry American favor for staying in power at the cost of poor Pakistanis, unfortunately, thus, making it difficult for Pakistani diplomatic community to make Pakistan’s case forcefully in Washington.

Trackback URL