
Express/EPA: "Areh, you....bloody...Wikileaks..."
It has been a few days since the latest Wikileaks fiasco began, and news channels, online media sources and Twitter have been flooded with constant updates.
At this time, I really would love it if I didn’t have to see 1) the word Wikileaks followed by “dump” 2) the word Wikileaks followed by “state secrets revealed” (I mean, really? Berlosconi partying? Sarkozy chasing puppies?), 3) photos of Julian Assange in Zoolander-style poses, or 4) just the word Wikileaks.
However, since the “dump” in question on Wednesday had to do with Pakistan, I did a little sifting so that you, dear readers, wouldn’t have to. Here’s a run-down:
The Obvious
1. Hundreds of millions of dollars of U.S. aid money were not used for its intended purpose. Yes, because U.S. aid to Pakistan has been spent efficiently for decades.
2. In a private meeting with former U.S. ambassador Anne Patterson, COAS Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani and ISI Chief Gen. Shuja Pasha “complained vociferously” about provisions in the aid package calling for military accountability towards the civilian government (via The News). If you look up military accountability in the dictionary, you might find a photo of Kayani showcasing a “choice” finger.
3. The U.S. is frustrated with Pakistan. There is mutual distrust. They no likey each other.
The Somewhat Interesting
1. During the judicial crisis in March 2009, Gen. Kayani hinted to Ambassador Patterson that he may ‘reluctantly’ have to urge Zardari to resign if conditions deteriorate and “indicated that Asfandyar Wali Khan [leader of the ANP] or someone else broadly acceptable (though not Nawaz Sharif) might be an appropriate replacement,” [via the Express Tribune]. This would not have been an “official” coup and would have left the official PPP government (with Gilani) in place, so elections would not have to take place. According to Dawn, “The implied message in Gen Kayani’s contingency planning was immediately read by the ambassador as a plea to intervene and compel both parties to back down or else the army would play its role.”
2. In February 2009, Zardari told his son Bilawal Bhutto-Zardari that if he was assassinated, then Bilawal should name Zardari’s sister Faryal Talpur as president. According to Express, Kayani “told U.S. ambassador to Pakistan Anne Patterson that Talpur would be a better president than her brother.” Apparently we are the Islamic Monarchy of Pakistan.
The Under-Highlighted
Perhaps the most telling cable leak was the revelation that the United States were aware of the military’s extrajudicial killings and human rights abuses during operations in Swat and Malakand, but purposefully kept quiet, [remember this video taken by mobile phone?]. The September 2009 memo stated,
Senior military commanders have equally and repeatedly stressed their concerns that the courts are incapable of dealing with many of those detained on the battlefield and their fears that if detainees are handed over to the courts and formally charged, they will be released, placing Pakistan Army and FC troops at risk.
This belief by commanding officers that the judicial system was incapable of prosecuting detainees, as well as the belief that revenge killings were “key to maintaining a unit’s honor,” were reportedly reasons cited by Patterson that many of these alleged extrajudicial killings and abuse happened. However, while the U.S. privately expressed concern about these murders, they “deemed it was better not to comment publicly in order to allow the Pakistani army to take action on its own,” noted Declan Walsh of the Guardian.
Moreover, while the U.S. discussed proposing alternatives to military commanders in the hopes reducing human rights abuses, the memo ultimately advised that the U.S. “avoid comment on these incidents to the extent possible,” in order to preserve goodwill and resist criticizing this strategic ally too much.
For me, this leak further emphasizes the holes in the U.S. rhetoric towards Pakistan. The relationship is built on short-term strategic interests, despite crows from both governments to the contrary. This is not surprising from a realpolitik perspective, but it should nevertheless be a reminder to constantly read between the lines – to not generate more conspiracy theories, but to remember that every country will operate in a way that serves its best interest. Simon Tisdall at the Guardian makes this point when he noted,
All great powers intrude in pursuit of their own interests; it’s what they do – and picking up where the British left off, the U.S. is no different. It is a measure of the Pakistani state’s weakness that the Americans apparently have such scope and leeway to influence and direct its affairs.What is equally remarkable, however, is how little the Americans appear able, ultimately, to control their satraps.
The biggest casualties from this constant game, noted Tisdall, are ordinary Pakistanis, who suffer grievously from terrorism, “a ravaged economy, acute poverty and lack of education; and in the all but forgotten but still terrible aftermath of this year’s floods.” I’d have to agree.
“Islamic monarchy”-haha! That made my morning 😉
None of this information is really news. Anyone who has been reading the newspaper and following what’s happening on the ground even somewhat closely is probably aware of some if not all of these factors. The issue though is Wikileaks itself. I’m all for knowing more about what’s going on but Wikileaks makes me uneasy since it seems more destabilizing. And it really does not add clarity to the mess that is covered by the media. Thoughts?
Here’s my question: Isn’t it possible that the US looking the other way on aid misuse and human rights abuses is due not to the relationship being built on short-term strategic interests, but because these problems are more likely to be changed if the US stays engaged with the Pakistani government/military?
Imagine the headlines in Nawa-i-Waqt and The News International if the US publicly criticized Pakistani forces for extrajudicial killings in Swat. And we don’t have to imagine what would happen if Congress tried to insert accountability metrics in aid bills – we all remember the response to Kerry-Lugar.
The people of Pakistan are suffering terribly, to be sure. But I have yet to hear a recommendation for how to improve their situation that does not involve a long-term strategy of engagement between Pakistan and the US (and other nations, to be sure). In order to preserve that engagement, both nations are, unfortunately, going to end up looking the other way sometimes.
You’re right about #3 under “The obvious” – there’s definitely mutual distrust. But what I’m afraid you missed under “The under-highlighted” is that we also learned that officials from both nations are working tirelessly to build trust and present a more honest impression of each other than we get from Joel Brinkley and Shireen Mazari. That sounds like pretty good news to me.
Seth,
Thanks for your comment. I agree with your point to an extent but I don’t agree that the U.S. chose not to criticize Pakistan on the extrajudicial killings because they thought the problems were more likely to change if they stayed engaged – I truly think it was from a very strategic perspective. The U.S. and Pakistan have a very tenuous relationship, but the Pakistani military is really who the U.S. needs to help defend their “strategic interests” – the alliance is necessary.
In Pakistan, when the murders occurred, it was largely hushed up – the military didn’t want to be seen in a harsh light despite the enormous human rights violations it was committing unabated. I have a feeling that if Washington criticized it publicly, it would further piss off an ally they couldn’t really afford to piss off.
While I would like to think more optimistically, that the U.S. chose not to say anything because they believe they could change things if they stayed engaged with the military, history so far has shown otherwise. Could it change? Sure. But I am skeptical. And I don’t think the response if the criticism did occur would be comparable to the Kerry-Lugar Bill accountability measures – many Pakistani citizens were outraged when the video and news was released.
And I’d agree with your other “under-highlighted” point – honestly, the Wikileaks cables in my opinion did not do a service to transparency, but made this already tenuous relationship, which many are working to strengthen, more so.
Background on the extra-judicial killings:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/15/world/asia/15swat.html
Btw, I hope this post doesn’t make it seem that I’m all together pessimistic about U.S.-Pakistan relations, but I do tend to be more on the realistic/skeptical end. 🙂
Kalsoom,
Actually, I appreciate your skepticism (which is quite warranted). Honestly, I likely would have had a completely different read a few years ago. Perhaps I am being a little optimistic here (though I hope not overly so) but I do feel like there has been a legitimate attempt not to “hit the reset button” as people like to say, but to reorient the relationship towards a more long-term partnership. Everyone’s not on board, yet – Dick Cheney and Hamid Gul will always be who they are – but it seems like a lot of people are slowly coming around.
I don’t really disagree with your characterization of the US response to the Swat killings. Unfortunately, it seems that one thing all militaries agree on is the need to use disproportionate force and attempt to cover it up, inevitably making things worse. And I definitely agree that Washington didn’t want to piss off an ally they need in the immediate term.
I don’t want to pretend that everything is rosy – it’s not. And I certainly don’t agree with Obama or Zardari on all points (they *still* haven’t called to ask my advice!), but I do think that each side appears to be making a sincere effort at putting things on the right track, albeit slowly, cautiously. Maybe its a reaction to having watched the disaster of Bush’s foreign policy, but I do feel that while the present relationship is tenuous, as you correctly describe it, there does exist a real opportunity right now. Even if you’re more skeptical and I’m a little optimistic, it is my hope that by giving some perspective to those who might not otherwise get it, you and I can help keep the train on track – and straighten out the rails as we go forward.
Best,
Seth
There was a piece in Express Tribune which quotes the American Ambassador as saying that Punjab Government had warned LeT before they were banned which allowed them to empty the bank accounts. Felt so cheated.
I feel bad always whenever people die in Pakistan in bomb blasts. I am thinking now if I was wrong in feeling that way.
You weren’t wrong – this is the problem with Wikileaks! It’s making people confuse citizens with the actions of their government and all together takes things out of context. The specific cable u are speaking of was in reference to the PML-N’s relationship with Jamat-ud-Dawa – very shady, but shouldn’t be a reflection on the Pakistani people, Anoop.
I know Pakistani people dont know or dont have a say in this. I hope they learn their lessons soon.
But, when I read that report I felt shattered. I can see the ISI or the Army acting this way, they are programmed to, but an elected government? Shame.
[…] efforts against terrorists, but on Pakistan’s nuclear program, its human-rights abuses, and many other issues. That trust gap persists despite a recent five-year, $7.5 billion U.S. civilian aid package to […]
WOW!!!! Though much of this was suspected, the extent of micromanaging indulged by the Yanks is outrageous. I used to marvel at the creativity of Pakistani conspiracy theorists earlier but can one blame them when they live in such a convoluted atmosphere. The range of revelations is truly numbing. From Mian Saheb thanking Ms. Patterson for giving Gen. Kayani an extension, Gilani brushing aside Malik’s advice on drone attacks stating that they would protest in the Assembly & then ignore it, Gen. Kayani mulling replacing Zardari with Wali Khan to authorizing revenge killings by the Army – just who have the Pakistanis voted for in the last election?
Kalsoom, I had aired my views sometime back that as long as the Pakistani Army & the ‘Agencies’ didnt let go of the stranglehold they have on civilian governance, Pakistan’s woes would never end. Now that its clear that even the Yanks (despite their shrill cries of upholding democracy) are legitimizing the Army’s de facto control of all things Pakistani, the fig leaf has well and truly fallen. I’m looking forward to Mr. Kamran Shafi’s column on this, in fact I’m sure I can ghostwrite it for him & even he wouldnt make out its not his.
Seriously though, this is NOT good news for Pakistan. Damnit! Arent the votes of millions of Pakistanis worth anything? Atleast now the people who rant and rave against Zardari’s Govt will now know that there is no such thing as that. Its just a mirage! Sad, very sad!
PLM-N returns shall the internal unrest. Cease there going to continue have retailation due U.S presents.
Current administration be able to retain. Authority
highly unlikely, Kalsoom most Pakistans living aboard
feel. Insecure returning why? Unstable security forces
with aid from America. Never quell unrest in argary
between military. Netural lands of northern Pakistan!