An upbeat American view

ISLAMABAD: US ambassador Ryan C. Crocker met a group of senior journalists during a 70-minute interaction on Wednesday.

The venue was the ambassador’s sprawling residence in the splendid diplomatic haven that was home to President Bush during his overnight stay here. The timing was significant as was the perceived objective of the roundtable with Pakistani media organised by the US embassy. It was convened just four days after the Foreign Office issued a strong statement articulating Pakistan’s position and concerns regarding the Indo-US nuclear deal. It was clearly an exercise to allay the concerns of both the government and the people of Pakistan about this controversial multi-billion dollar deal and the growing cynicism in the country about America being a dependable partner.

The US ambassador made some intriguing observations and put forth long-winded arguments in defence of the nuclear deal with India. Notably, this was his first formal encounter with the Pakistani media after the 26-hour Bush visit to Pakistan and raised many questions.

Referring to the “different needs and different backgrounds” of India and Pakistan in the energy sector, he highlighted the fact that while Pakistan’s target goal for power to be generated from nuclear plants by 2030 was five per cent, India’s was about 20 per cent. He asserted that the US was dealing seriously with Pakistan’s energy concerns and in this context mentioned the initiation of the Pakistan-US energy dialogue and the visit of US energy secretary just a week after President Bush was here.

Pointing to the fact that currently less than one per cent of Pakistan’s total power was generated through nuclear plants, he said: “For the United States to say that we would be engaged actively with Pakistan in the 95 to 99 per cent of the energy field that is non-nuclear hardly represents a cold shoulder or turning away.”

Defending the civilian nuclear deal with India, the US ambassador repeatedly underlined that 19 per cent of the Indian nuclear facilities were under IAEA safeguards but this agreement would bring that figure up to 65 per cent, with the commitment that all under-construction or contemplated facilities would also be brought under IAEA safeguards. The eventual figure would be around 90 per cent, he maintained

His assertion was: “In our view that makes the region more not less stable and secure. “He kept insisting that the deal would ensure that there were more safeguards.

Ambassador Crocker went to great lengths to underscore the US commitment to the NPT. “As an original signatory along with other five permanent members of the UN Security Council that have nuclear capability we are in the vanguard of those who do not want to see the world become a nuclearly more dangerous place.” He said: “We were the driving force behind the NPT. That will never change....that is sacrosanct to us.”

The ambassador did not appear to appreciate Pakistani concerns. “We simply would never have entertained this Indo-US agreement if we were not totally confident that it does not enhance a nuclear weapons programme.”

In a veiled reference to Pakistan’s strong reaction last week to the deal, the ambassador said: “There is nothing new in March that wasn’t out there in July.” He had a good laugh when a journalist remarked: “You see people here wake up in spring!”

In an apparent attempt to neutralise the anti-US sentiment in the country and to emphasise that the Bush administration was pursuing de-hyphenated relationships with Pakistan and India, Mr Crocker said there were major things that the US was doing with Pakistan that it wasn’t doing with the India. He cited the example of security and military cooperation, saying there was nothing even close to that which the US had with India. To make his point further he projected Pakistan’s taking over command of the Multinational Interdiction Force next month as a major development. However, the ambassador had no clear answer when asked what would be the actual benefits of this apart from grabbing headlines. Good headlines are worth the grab! he quipped.

The ambassador-sounded quite upbeat about the evolving Pakistan-US relationship and said: “The vision of a sustained partnership is now very much a reality.” However, when Mr Crocker’s optimism was challenged and his attention drawn to certain ground realities he seemed in denial. His body language conveyed that he was discomforted by a volley of piercing questions challenging unjust US policies smacking of double standards. However, he remained cool and calm even when told that the impression here was that anti-Pakistan statements emanating from Kabul were encouraged by the US government.

A seasoned career diplomat, the US ambassador was careful not to get drawn into the controversy of democracy or domestic politics in Pakistan. When his comments were solicited on the appointment of new the Chief Election Commissioner, he was guarded in his response. While mindful of both the “positive” and “negative” views it had evoked, he was clear that as an outsider it was not his place to referee matter like this.

Equating Pakistan with Afghanistan he asserted: It’s absolutely clear to me that Pakistan and Afghanistan have common visions for their countries, economic, social and political developments. The two states are seeking the same goals for their peoples and the states in those goals are completely compatible.

On the war on terror the ambassador made it clear that Pakistan was not doing the US any favour. Pakistan is not doing us a favour in harming its interests thereby nor are we doing favours that harm our interests, was his message. His point was that the two countries had shared interests and were cooperating together against a common enemy. Underscoring that things changed fundamentally after 9/11, he observed: It changed the thinking in America, it changed the thinking and calculation here.

On criticism that the US government had no moral authority to issue human rights reports on other countries given its own track record of human rights abuses, particularly in Abu Gharib prison and Guantanamo Bay, the ambassador’s matter of fact response was: The human rights report is prepared every year because it is congressionally mandated...Certainly any country, any group is absolutely free to comment on any human rights report and comment on how they perceive it. His parting note was: We have absolutely no difficulty with any country or anyone else preparing a human rights report on the United States.

NEWS ANALYSIS: Politicians in need of the uniform

LAHORE: Addressing the PML workers’ convention in Lahore on Thursday, Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz said the party’s leaders and workers were “mujahids” of President Musharraf.

Punjab Chief Minister Pervaiz Elahi said the party would re-elect Gen Musharraf as president-in-uniform, no matter whether somebody liked it or not. His main argument in favour of retaining a uniformed president was that he would be able to ensure the continuity of policies which had made it possible for the country to make progress over the past six years.

Sindh Chief Minister Dr Arbab Rahim said the party would re- elect the president but it was for him to take a decision on his uniform.

Others who spoke on the occasion also praised the president for his leadership qualities and gave him credit for the progress made by the country since he assumed power.

The expectation that the president will give up his uniform latest by 2007 and that the ruling party will consider itself strong enough by the next elections to do away with the crutches of the army have been dashed by Thursday’s convention.

It appears that the party still needs the military shield to be able to face the political challenges ahead. The ‘don’t leave us alone’ sort of message that came out of the convention shows the vulnerability of the party.

Why such assurances to the general when he has some 20 months to take a decision on his uniform? The term of his office expires in November 2007 and he is allowed to retain his uniform till then.

It is said that the party wants to send a message to the international community and the general’s critics at home that the PML is with the general and will remain with him in the future. It may also be an attempt to let the opposition parties know that the PML will support the general and they are free to do whatever they can to dislodge him.

Interestingly, on the very day the PML was assuring the president of its support, the MMA president, Qazi Husain Ahmed, took a sort of a somersault and showed an unexpected flexibility in the religious alliance’s earlier stand about the competence of Gen Musharraf to stay both as president and army chief. Addressing a conference in Rawalpindi, he said the general should retain only one of the two offices he was holding. Since December 2004, the religious alliance had been saying that because the general had reneged on his commitment to take off his uniform according to the deadline set by the 17th amendment, he was ineligible for both posts.

Why this shift in the religious alliance’s stand on what it has been agitating as an issue of constitutional importance?

Perhaps, like the ruling PML, the religious parties also cannot afford to annoy the military, notwithstanding their countless threats to launch and re-launch and re-launch movements against the general.

Informed sources say the PML has some alternative plans to keep Gen Musharraf in a position of authority even if he has to take off his uniform because of any international pressure or domestic criticism. It is said that the general may not like to stay as president without uniform. The president, some people say, thinks that real power lies in the military uniform and once it is not there, he may not be able to implement the agenda he had given after overthrowing the PML-N government in October 1999.

Thus, the option of making Gen Musharraf prime minister of Pakistan is also being kept open. Sources say that as prime minister, Gen Musharraf will be in a better position to work for the country. And it is also possible that at some appropriate time, he can also be elected president of the ruling party.

This can only be seen as an alternative strategy. The first choice of the PML is that the president should continue in his uniform.