America frequently raises the slogans of liberty, equality and freedom of expression. The very first amendment in the American constitution i.e. Bill of Rights, also includes the freedom. Americans say that they believe in freedom and diversity of opinions.

It also gives great importance to its media. It seldom ignores the opinion of media analysts and experts. So by taking a close look in American media opinions, it can be assessed what they think about Pakistan and how they want to acheive their interest in the present scenario, which is basic concern about Pakistan? What sort of threat do they feel from the tribal areas? What are their concern about Musharraf’s role, fair and free elections and restoration of democracy in Pakistan?

Let us analyse the three main issues and see how American media is portraying the situation in Pakistan.

Views on al Qaeda ‘safe havens’ in Pakistan

The National Intelligence Estimate on the Terrorist Threat to the US Homeland, which reflects the consensus of all 16 US intelligence agencies, believe al Qaeda as having ‘regenerated key elements’ and freely operating from bases in North-Western Pakistan.

US intelligence officials and counter-terrorism experts claim that al Qaeda has strongholds throughout Pakistan, not just in the areas bordering Afghanistan that have been emphasised in a terrorism assessment, but also Osama bin Laden’s network is more deeply entrenched than described. In the context of the report Obama, a US presidential candidate, while speaking to the Woodrow Wilson International Centre for Scholars said that he would use unilateral American force — if necessary, if actionable intelligence were available, and if Pakistan failed to act — to strike a valuable target like Osama bin Laden.

After the report, there is a common consensus in American media that not only believes the existence of al Qaeda existence in Pakistan but also want to eliminate the ‘extremists’. It sees the extremists as a threat to national as well as international security.

Below are some excerpts taken from different American newspapers that support the al Qaeda link with Pakistan.

Amir Taheri, in his article titled Why Pakistan needs Musharraf published on 10th August in ‘The New York Post’, mentions the threatens that extremists can take over the government He relates the exclusion of secular political parties with a possible emergence of a Taliban-style Islamic emirates by saying: “By excluding Pakistan’s traditional, people-based parties and leaders, Musharraf left the field open for the very Taliban-style groups that are trying to murder him.”

According to William M Arkin, an 9th August an op-ed published in ‘The Washington Post’ titled Pakistan’s nukes: worry or excuse? relates Pakistan establishment with extremists by writing: “The Pakistani establishment is riddled with Islamic extremists and al Qaeda sympathizers.”

Similar views have been given by an editorial of ‘Los Angeles Times’ (10th August) titled Talking Musharraf down from the ledge in these words: “No counterinsurgency can succeed without popular support, and certainly not one as politically delicate as the struggle against the Islamist extremists who are well-entrenched in Pakistan.”

A consensus with even more extreme views is reflected in Josh Meyer’s ‘Al Qaeda widespread in Pakistan’ (Los Angeles Times 20th July) in these words: “Bin Laden’s network has strengthened ties to groups fighting for control of Kashmir. The Pakistani government has limited authority in the largely autonomous tribal areas, and has had little success in attacking al Qaeda there, but it also has refused to allow US forces to go in.

“One, of course, would be to initiate aggressive campaigns of deniable covert action in Pakistan to capture or kill Qaeda operatives, and pray that American Special Forces or C.I.A. officers don’t get caught. Another would be to use airstrikes against known terrorist compounds in the tribal areas. A third would involve carrying out a large-scale ground offensive across the border from Afghanistan — sending troops to rumble through villages in the hunt for the world’s most wanted men.”

H D S Greenway who is a regular columnist of ‘The Boston Globe’ in context of the government’s peace deal with the tribal people, argues that extremists got an upper hand by dint of Musharraf’s policies. In his column The Pakistan problem published on 14th August he writes: “Clearly, President Pervez Musharraf’s attempt to buy peace and loyalty on the North-West frontier has backfired. He had hoped to head off increasing support for Islamist extremists, but instead al Qaeda has been the beneficiary.”

He further adds that: “I believe Musharraf is sincere when he says he wants to rid the country of Islamic extremists. But he has to tread carefully, as the tribal nationalism of the frontier is interwoven with Islamism, much of it extreme.”

A fact worth mentioning here is that America was not happy with the peace deal.

21 July’ article How to squeeze militancy out of Pakistan published in ‘The Christian Science Monitor’ by Vali Nasr, Pakistan is portrayed as a training ground for al Qaeda and a correlation between the peace deal and Qaeda function is sketched.



Views about President Musharraf

American media sees Musharraf as an important allay in the war on terror. It also urges the president to restore democracy, to shed this military uniform, to eliminate extremism and to conduct free and fair elections and to assure the participation of secular political parties in the upcoming elections.

Amir Taheri in the same article Why Pakistan needs Musharraf wants the president to doff the uniform by writing “Pakistan’s best bet would be for Musharraf to stay at his post until after the next general election. Then, he should be asked to give up either the presidency or command of the armed forces.” He thinks that Musharraf has the ability to tackle the tough challenges. “A closer look at Pakistan’s complex situation, however, shows a different picture. As things heat up, Pakistan may need Musharraf more than at any other time,” he writes.

‘Los Angeles Times’ 7th August editorial Bush’s strategic silence on Pakistan correlates the president’s US cooperation with the empowerment of extremism.

“The best way to empower radical Islamists in Pakistan is to offer proof of their views that Musharraf is a US puppet and that the United States is a fair-weather friend with no respect for the Pakistani nation.”

Similarly ‘The Washington Post’ considers Musharraf to be aggressive to extremism. In its 9th August article Pakistan’s nukes: worry or excuse? written by William M Arkin it labels Musharraf a leader that dances to the tune of the West.

“Musharraf, in fact, is seen as so hostile to radical Islamic goals, and such a puppet of the West, that Pakistan’s nuclear weapons have practically vanished from view,” according to the editorial.

Mark Mazzetti and David E Sanger’ No Headline praises Musharraf to be a secular moderate. “Washington is captivated by General Musharraf because he is a secular moderate, which is not to be confused with a civil libertarian,” according to the writers.

Maureen Dowd in her article Hey, W! Bin Laden (Still) Determined to Strike in US blames Musharraf not doing enough to capture Bin Laden.

“Just as we outsourced capturing Osama at Tora Bora to Afghans who had no motive to do it, we outsourced capturing Osama in Pakistan to Mr Musharraf, who had no motive to do it.” That statement ignores the Pakistan’s role on war against terror.

In the context of the storming of Lal Masjid and reference against the Chief Justice, HDS Greenway in his article The Pakistan problem published in ‘The Boston Globe’ on 14th August condemns Musharraf’s move and argues that the siege and storming of the Red Mosque has riled the faithful, and Musharraf’s unlawful and unsuccessful attempt to unseat Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammed Chaudhry has made the president of Pakistan look foolish.

Another editorial of the newspaper published on 20th July titled Pakistan’s uncertain future rules out that martial law is a solution to the political problems. “Musharraf might attempt to reassert control by instituting martial law, but that would not solve the underlying political problems,” according to the editorial.

Views on National Politics

As far as national politics of Pakistan is concerned, there is a common consensus in the media that there should be free and fair elections in Pakistan and secular democratic parties must rule the country. Because, according to the media, it is a key to defeat extremism.

‘The New York Times’ 11th August editorial High-Maintenance Musharraf urged revival of political parties in the national political scenario.

“Most Pakistanis now want a return to elected civilian government, even if that means bringing back some of the flawed party leaders the general has tried to banish from political life, like two former prime ministers, Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif.”

It further argues the importance of democracy in these words: “Telling General Musharraf not to seize still more power is not enough. Washington should tell him to negotiate a rapid return to democracy, before it’s too late.”

Ahmed Rashid in his ‘Washington Post’s’ article Musharraf’s State of Emergency also highlights the importance of democracy and relates it with the country’s stability and an end to extremism.

The same arguements have been given by Vali Nasr from The Christian Science Monitors these words: “Frustrated with developments in Pakistan, many in Washington look to elections and a civilian government for solutions. Democracy should be welcomed, but it will change little.”

Amir Taheri from The New York Post also conditions defeat to terrorism with free and fair elections. “To defeat terrorism, Pakistan needs unity. That can be achieved only through free elections open to all parties and, preferably, under a neutral caretaker government,” he argues. But his stance seems pro-PPP when he says “Musharraf needn’t change his personal sentiments toward Bhutto. But he must acknowledge the fact that she cannot be scripted out of Pakistan’s political life.

Conclusion

There is a common consensus in the selected American media which believes that Pakistan has become a save haven for al Qaeda and extremists and the terror organisation there is more lethal than that of Iraq.

The media wants elimination of extremists in the tribal areas of Pakistan by using all possible means.

It believes that the only beneficiary of the government’s peace deal with tribal Pashtuns is al Qaeda.

The war against terrorism can’t be won without the cooperation of Pakistan.

President Musharraf is an important allay against war on terror.

The president is also being considered as a puppet of the West.

The President has been urged to restore democracy, to doff military uniform, to eliminate extremism, to conduct free and fair elections and to guarantee the participation of secular political parties in the upcoming elections.

The general is losing its credibility and popularity and he in on a gradual demise.

The media agrees that there should be free and fair elections in Pakistan.

Secular democratic parties must rule the country.

The only way to defeat terrorism is a civilian government established by free and fair elections.

http://thepost.com.pk/vis.aspx#Position