Pakistan Faces Mounting Tensions with Neighbors

16 May 2011

Pakistan's role in the 'war on terror' has placed the country in a difficult position not only vis-à-vis the US but also its neighbors. In fact, bin Laden's assassination has further strained already taut regional relations - just as regional cooperation becomes more important than ever to defeating the terrorist threat.

As Pakistani and US officials struggle to come to terms with the repercussions of bin Laden's death - and his comfortable life inside Pakistan - many speculate that the already precarious US-Pak alliance will not be able to withstand this blow. In a recent interview, US President Barack Obama stated that there "had to be some sort of support network for Osama Bin Laden within Pakistan" - his first public allegation that Pakistani elements were somehow complicit in bin Laden's survival in the country. While some local contingents had to be aware of bin Laden's presence, Pakistani authorities are vehemently denying that there was any government-level involvement. The Pakistani public remains polarized: some commentators are not convinced by the government's claims, while others disregard any alleged collaboration with bin Laden, pointing out that the Inter-Services-Intelligence, Pakistan's premier intelligence agency, has suffered over external page200 casualties from terrorist attacks and captured more Al-Qaeda terrorists than all other intelligence agencies combined, including Abu Faraj Al Libbi, one of the main CIA sources used to find bin Laden's courier.

As the debate about Pakistan's involvement with bin Laden rages on, it is becoming apparent that the fallout will not render any tactical upheavals in the Pak-US alliance - just a widening trust deficit. Even as high ranking Pakistani military and diplomatic personnel have condemned the US violations of Pakistani territory, routine US operations have continued unabated; just days after the surgical strike in Abbottabad that killed bin Laden, drone attacks continue, the latest one external pagekilling five in North Waziristan, in addition to the external page15 killed a few days ago, effectively dispelling speculation that his assassination might have paved the way for reduced drones in the area.

This brings us to an imperative question: will bin Laden's assassination foster any substantial changes on how the 'war on terror' is conducted? In terms of the US strategic approach, the answer is 'no'. However, for Pakistan the answer is 'yes'; in a region home to one-fifth of the world's population, two nuclear powers and a history of animosity, this development will not be without consequences.

Heightened tensions

The UN Security Council released a external pagestatement reaffirming "that member states must ensure that any measures taken to combat terrorism comply with all their obligations under international law." While the US operation constitutes a clear territorial infringement from Pakistan's perspective, it is not shocking given the execution of the 'war on terror'. It is questionable whether drone attacks, and most recently the case of Raymond Davies - a CIA agent accused of killing two Pakistani civilians whose case was dismissed after compensation was paid to the families of the deceased - comply with international law. However, actions taken in the name of combating terrorism have often enjoyed a de facto immunity from international legal repercussions, and none of its allies, including Pakistan, have ever seriously challenged the modalities. Could it be different this time?

In addition to being the first time that foreign forces have conducted a covert operation in the interior of the country without detection, it is also the first time that Pakistan has had its defense capabilities and ideological credibility challenged so publicly. For the US-Pak relationship, the high degree of mutual dependence makes it difficult for either side to advocate disengagement. But the US mission for bin Laden spells disaster for Pakistan's regional reputation.

Both the Indian and Afghan intelligence chiefs have testified that they warned Pakistan about bin Laden's presence in the country; they have also been arguing for years that Pakistan is not on the fringes - but in fact the center - of terrorism. Their claims appear to have been verified in recent days. High officials in the Indian Army went so far as to external pagesay that India has the capacity to carry out an operation similar to the one that took out bin Laden. Following the comment, the Pakistani Foreign Secretary external pagewarned that "We see a lot of bravado in our own region. There have been statements that have come from across (the border), by senior people from the military and air force, which state that this can be repeated. We feel that sort of misadventure or miscalculation would result in a terrible catastrophe".

During this crisis, the President of the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party in India also issued an unambiguous external pagewarning that if Pakistan were to use nuclear weapons, "its existence itself would be wiped out of the world map." There have been no offers of appeasement from Pakistan either, with recent WikiLeaks exposing the Army Chief General Ashfaq Kayani's reluctance to comply to a 'no-first strike' policy. In fact US commentators have argued that in the aftermath of the US-India civil nuclear energy deal, Pakistan has upped its nuclear arsenal.

Despite the aggressive posturing, a nuclear standoff is unlikely, as officials from both sides have maintained a degree of co-operation - but it is clear that tensions in the subcontinent are on the rise. As India reaches out to Afghanistan, with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh external pagevisiting Kabul for the first time in nearly six years and promising increased aid to Afghanistan from $1.5 to $2 billion - the timing does not go unnoticed. With the Northern Alliance's historical leanings toward India (going back to the late 80s when Pakistan supported the Taliban), India's increasing strategic depth in Afghanistan makes Pakistan highly uncomfortable. Having lost 'credibility' with almost all tiers of the Afghan populace in the post 9/11 landscape, Pakistan has taken a backseat, while Kabul advocates more involvement from India. According to the Director of the Kabul Center for Strategic Studies, Afghans often express frustration with India's apparent inability or unwillingness to play a more active political role. Needless to say these regional rivalries not only risk turning Afghanistan into a proxy field (again), but also cast Pakistan as the regional outcast. In a neighborhood where Pakistan cannot claim too many friendships, this kind of exposure only heightens its fears of regional reprisals.

If the US wants to be successful in this war, these fears have to be addressed. As India and Afghanistan both call for a re-evaluation of their security paradigms, Pakistan fears that any re-adjustments will result in its further isolation. As a local Dawn newspaper editorial concluded: "A less anxious Pakistan may be willing to engage the outside world more positively". To ease Pakistan's apprehensions, the US must facilitate a realm of trust and cooperation across the region if they want to continue this war and remain a counter-weight to China, who will only too willingly step in given history and opportunity. That is not to say that Pakistan be issued a blank check, but Pakistani citizens must not be given reason to condone anti-Americanism, a sentiment that will only propel the terrorists. As a local journalist put it, "Our sovereignty is continuously violated by terrorists and now the USA." It is in US interests to dispel any doubts that the US or India are the real danger - making clear that it is the terrorists who pose the ultimate threat.

A question of sovereignty

Sovereignty is defined by the clear demarcation of territory. Unfortunately in Pakistan's case, much regional animosity stems from a lack of clear-cut borders. In the Northeast, Kashmir remains a disputed territory. Along Pakistan's Western border is the Durand line, a poorly demarcated border with Afghanistan, which runs across the Baluch and Pashtun provinces. In both cases, the ambiguity has wrought deep trans-regional involvement. The shared cross-border ethnicities have also aided what has become a complex quagmire of rivalries and terrorist sanctuaries, making it impossible to denote a point of origin for militant groups operating in the area.

The Kashmir border has been an issue of contention since partition. Pakistan and India have gone to war over it three times. Pakistani authorities have consistently labeled local Kashmiri militias as 'freedom fighters'. However, they also acknowledge the existence of terrorist groups such as Lashkar e Taiba, who executed the Mumbai bombings and have command centers across Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Until recently, the border with Afghanistan was not a problem. Its porous nature was well suited to Cold War tactics. In the post Cold War era, there were attempts by former Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf to create a clear division by constructing fences; however these attempts were not welcomed by political parties in Pakistan or Afghanistan. The Taliban refused to cooperate stating no borders were necessary between Muslims. When Afghani President Hamid Karzai came to power, he also refused to endorse the Durand line and referred to it as "A line of hatred that raised a wall between the two brothers". Even as late as 2006, he warned that any attempt to divide cross-border ethnicities or weaken Afghanistan would result in suffering across the region.

Unfortunately the lack of demarcation has led to more suffering. It is no secret that terrorists have created cross-border sanctuaries, which have extended far beyond the peripheries - as bin Laden's location proved. There are at least 15 transnational terrorist organizations operating across the Af-Pak border alone.

In order to curb these infringements, a regional assessment needs to take place, not a blame game or aggressive posturing. As bilateral meetings continue, India and Pakistan need to make some headway regarding the Kashmir issue. Pakistan and Afghanistan need to find a joint way to police these borders securely, especially if they want a decreased US role in the region. Whether justified or not, the US has made it clear that they will not leave until they secure the area. Richard Haas, President of the Council on Foreign Relations, external pagestated "When they do not police their own territory, the rest of the world will violate Pakistan when they are not prepared or able to make sure their territory is terrorist free." As Pakistan begins an internal investigation into the epic intelligence failure to locate bin Laden, it is indeed in the interest of the whole region to ensure freedom from terrorism and cultivate stability - a feat more likely to occur with cooperation - not unilateral strikes violating territorial integrity.

Particularly, in the aftermath of bin Laden's assassination, steps have to be taken to ensure that the war on terror alliance puts up a strong front. In organizational terms, terrorist groups have proven to be extremely resilient and united. The recent external pageretaliation from the Tehrik-e-Taliban (TTP), killing 80 in an attack on a paramilitary school in the North West demonstrates how terrorist groups will capitalize on bin Laden's death despite ideological differences. (The Al-Qaeda has traditionally sought US targets, whereas TTP attacks center on locals.) While Pakistani's do not doubt that TTP carried out the attack, it is difficult for them to shake the feeling that the young men, celebrating their graduation, died because of the US mission to get bin Laden. It will only be a matter of time before these sentiments are exploited, and it would certainly be in nobody's interest if bin Laden proved to be more harmful in death than in life.

JavaScript has been disabled in your browser