the news article..Operation Geronimo and Pak-US relations

[sajjad sadique]

The “unilateral and unauthorized” Operation Geronimo, named after the 19th century Chiricahua Apache leader, may turn out to be a watershed in the context of US-Pakistan turbulent relationship. Despite the fact that there is a compulsion for Pakistan - as well as US, to keep the partnership in war on terror on an even keel, the brash American action, regardless of Pakistani priorities and sensitivities, has driven the mounting tension between the two nations ever close to the limits of a breaking point.

The reassurance by the COAS has lifted the national mood but the stunning silence following the US strike amply reflected the seething public anger and despondency that the nation felt over such a brazen breach of national sovereignty and pride. The hurt was further compounded by derogatory remarks made by CIA’s out going Chief Leon Panetta who, in a briefing for the lawmakers, said that Pakistan was either incompetent or was involved in aiding the world’s most sought after fugitive.

He also underscored the depths to which the trust level has plummeted between the two nations; no intelligence regarding the operation was shared with Pakistan for the fear of its disclosure to al-Qaeda. “It was decided that any effort to work with Pakistan could jeopardize the mission. They might alert the targets,” he told Time. To top it all the White House Spokesman, Jay Carney said that President Obama reserved the right to authorize other “unauthorized and unilateral” strikes inside Pakistan against al-Qaeda’s high value targets.

Such unvarnished display of US arrogance and abrasive rhetoric may be attributable to the early flush of a successful operation yet sanity is bound to return, sooner rather than later, for Pakistan has a strong hand of cards to play in this game.

The ground situation favours Pakistan with strengths that we need to translate into bargaining chips to retain respect, leverage, relevance and control. In this context the old dictum that how would others respect an individual if he didn’t respect himself, holds true. Some points, concerning Pakistan’s response merit consideration.

First, we need to realize and assert that despite the colossal technological advantage that the US enjoys, it is Pakistan that has the advantage of owning the turf that matters. We have the exclusive rights to operate in our own territory and our capability of gathering intelligence on grounds, despite the dent inflicted by the Geronimo affair is incomparable. To our detractors we can show that all successful arrests of al-Qaeda leadership prior to Operation Geronimo had been made possible by Pakistan’s active support and cooperation.

Even the leads that led the US to Abbottabad were shared by Pakistan with CIA. With such track record and potential that we bear, there is no question that our sovereignty be a subject of US prerogative. If CIA doesn’t keep Pakistan in the intelligence sharing loop, so be it. Partnerships are affairs of equality and two way communications and if CIA wants to be bossy and unilateral then ISI should set its own premium on the process of intelligence sharing.

Second, notwithstanding the US declared intention of violating our sovereignty at will, it should be made clear that our cooperation in the war on terror is subject to the respect accorded by US to our borders.

To US it is evident that there can be no solution for Afghanistan unless Pakistan is duly factored in. Besides, the US war machine operating in Afghanistan is sustained primarily through logistic supplies driven over land route in Pakistan.

If US is not inclined to respect us as a sovereign nation then this vital - and economical tap may be squelched. The extent to which we have been liberal in extending our cooperation is evident from the fact that the heavy Nato container carrying traffic has torn apart our dilapidated highway infrastructure for which the US is paying us no transit fees or compensatory reparations. If US treat us with scorn we should pay back in the same coin by making their dependence on Pakistan obvious and biting.

Third, the US actions have seriously degraded the inviolability of our borders by setting a precedent - a highly risky affair which India may exploit to replicate with catastrophic consequences. Already its Air and Army chiefs have made noises of having the capability to pull off surgical strike capability within Pakistan. It ought to be borne in mind that in 2001 India, following the attack on its Parliament, went on to order the largest ever mobilization of forces within days and threatened to carry out punitive strikes inside Pakistan.

It was only when Pakistan made it obvious that any Indian adventure would draw a comparable response and that its nuclear arsenal remained a major factor in the matrix of its deterrence that sense prevailed. Such sabre rattling is in glaring contradiction to a US assessment that the threat level from Pakistan’s Eastern Borders has undergone a major reduction.

Fourth, as the Raymond Davis affair has amply demonstrated, the US has incrementally increased its intelligence presence in Pakistan to threatening levels. US has no right to conduct espionage operations from Pakistani soil and we must put an effective check to make sure that the liberty of action acquired by US in Pakistan is effectively curbed to non-existence.

In this heady moment of intoxicating flush of success, there is a compulsive need for cold reflection within the US politico-security establishment to take a stock of the deep damage caused to Pak-US relations by Operation Geronimo and the imperatives to take corrective actions.

On our part we ought to be prepared to translate our strength vis-‡-vis US into tangible policy options to ensure that a repetition doesn’t occur. National interests drive bilateral relations and in our partnership with USA we have to make sure that at the end of the day we are not left in a cleft stick when the US ultimately departs from Afghanistan.