Hotline talk of two presidents

By K.N. Pandita

A 35-minute telephonic talk between President Bush and General Musharraf last week triggered a lovely controversy in the print media. It appears that each side wanted to convey something more than what was talked on the line. The purpose was served by the media as usual. Did Bush really want to reassure Musharraf that the provocative utterances of the running presidential candidate Obama could at best be his personal views and not the state policy of the US?

The world knows that in the US a running presidential candidate has to deal with all the questions and situations that the US will be required to deal with if he is voted to the White House. What a running presidential candidate says in his public speeches reflects the basics of his political party’s manifesto. Obviously, if he emerges victorious at the hustling, he shall have to implement the policy, domestic as well as foreign, as enunciated by him during his election campaign. Nobody will agree with President Bush that what Obama said about Pakistan could at best be his personal observations. Obama is as much serving national interests of his country as does George Bush.

Therefore neither President Bush’s affirmation of America’s commitment to honour the sovereignty of Pakistan is to be taken as the last word nor is General Musharraf so naïve as to give any weight to Bush’s reassuring words for him. There is lurking disbelief on either side. And that is the reality.

General Musharraf problem is that a large segment of American electorate has difficulty in believing that Pakistan’s military regime is genuinely interested in eradicating terrorism at home. They have very strong arguments to suspect Pakistan’s double play. Given the solid support Pakistani radicals have committed to the Taliban and al-Qaeda, it appears axiomatic to the Americans whether Musharraf will be able to cope with the situation at the end of the day. Leave aside the Democrats, the Republicans and many among senior bureaucrats in the State department are uncertain about the fate of the military regime. Obama appears to have strictly followed the words of Count Bismarck of Germany that he “opened a new chapter in international diplomacy by telling the truth.” At least the immediate impact of Obama’s clear message has led to the arrest of elusive mafia don Dawood in Pakistan.

One may say that Obama guffaw is nothing more than a mask to disguise the real purpose of George Bush’s long telephonic conversation with the dictator in Islamabad. It will noted that the conversation has taken place soon after the 123 Agreement on civilian nuclear cooperation between India and the US was released simultaneously in Washington and in New Delhi. Islamabad has been opposing the deal from the very beginning claiming that it would disrupt delicate balance of power in the region. Not only that, soon after the nuclear talks were underway, and Pakistan felt convinced that Bush was determined to go ahead to carry the talks to their logical conclusion, Islamabad began serious talks with her long time ally China to find a way out of this hegemonic move of their adversaries. Islamabad might not have hesitated from conveying some hard message to Washington if it went ahead with its nuclear deal with India.

Now that the deal has been struck after great brain storming sessions between the experts and senior officials on both sides, Pakistan could as well have threatened to cease fighting by the side of the Americans in war on terrorism. these critical exchanges are never made public but one can draw some inferences from the situations that have developed. The most important inference is that Washington is convinced that without a change in the regime in Pakistan it will be difficult to cap Taliban and Al-Qaeda menace in a sensitive region in Pakistan. The second inference is that Washington would prefer a peaceful change in political scenario in Pakistan so that no bloodshed and violence take place. For this reason, there have been of late secret missives exchanged between the leadership of leading Pakistani dissident groups. The name of Benazir Bhutto has been making rounds and it could not happen without the nod from the Presidential office. The much hyped Benazir-Musharraf secret meeting in Dubai held two weeks ago assumes much significance in view of mounting pressures on Musharraf from Washington to shun the military uniform if he wanted to serve the country as a committed democratic leader.

The Indo-US civilian nuclear deal has entered the last stage of ratification, which is hopped to happen when the Congress take up the issue for a decision in next two months. There are indications that ratification of the agreement is bound to force a change in the regional strategies in the sub-continent and in Central Asia.

While the US has at long last realised that the only democratic country in South Asia and incidentally the second largest populated country in the world has to be taken on board as the US is embroiled in a long-drawn war against global terrorism. This undoubtedly means a shift from half a century old American policy in the subcontinent. Musharraf does understand the implications of this shift and he has been complaining about it formally and informally. Washington is not oblivious to the nexus that is likely to be forged among Russia, China, India and Iran with a clear objective of restraining the influence of the US in oil rich Central Asia. In this emerging political scenario, Pakistan stands at a crucial crossroad of her history. We hope Pakistan will produce the leadership of reasonable statesmanship that can handle the situation coolly but pragmatically. The much cherished policy of hate India should not be become counterproductive for Pakistan.

(The writer ca be reached by e-mail).

Comments are closed.