M A I N   N E W S

Hubbub over Clinton visit
From I.A. Rehman

LAHORE, March 27— The response to President Clinton’s plain-speaking to Pakistan, during his less than half a day’s consolation visit, is as queer as public debates on political issues in this country generally are. Instead of reflecting on the implications of a radical shift in US attitude or the factors that have contributed to Pakistan’s present predicament, most of the parties in the field are concentrating on scoring points in their own favour.

The first one to sally forth was General Musharraf himself. Conscious of the fact that the US President had done everything possible to avoid conceding legitimacy to his regime, the direct address to the people being the most significant device, the General concentrated on what he had told his guests instead of what the latter had to say.

Nobody could argue with his declaration that Clinton’s visit had been ‘highly significant’ because this expression is not necessarily complementary to the one employing it. Similarly, he did not disclose anything when he referred to Clinton’s agreeing with him, or vice versa, that “tensions in South Asia are high and need to be defused,” but he did not care to address the difference in the perceptions of the two sides on the subject. Further, he caused many eyebrows to be raised when he claimed that his talks with Clinton “will serve to rejuvenate our 50-years-old friendship for mutual benefit and a better world.” This at a time when Dawn’s leader writer was concluding an appreciation of Clinton’s address in these words: “It can safely be assumed that official spokesmen will be putting the best possible spin on the US President’s words and extracting from them what comfort they can. But it is also safe to say that in countering the powerful impression he left behind they have a job on their hands.”

However, by reiterating that Pakistan was not in a hurry to sign the CTBT, that he could not give a time-table for return to democratic rule, that the theory of nuclear deterrence could not be given up, and that militants operating in Kashmir could not be described as terrorists, he strengthened those very elements that are arrayed against anyone with a workable plan to salvage the Pakistan state. No surprise then that the hawks, particularly hardline clerics, are falling over one another in praising the General for what they consider as a courageous defence of national interest. This group includes the Jamaat Islami which timed a ridiculous-looking ‘referendum’ on the CTBT issue with the US President’s visit and claimed its overwhelming rejection, leaders of militant religious organisations, and known hardliners such as retired General Hamid Gul. All of them are chirping with delight that their designs to keep the state enmeshed in their rhetoric have not suffered damage.

But there are others, including the leaders of the two major parties—Muslim League of the ousted premier and People’s Party—who have not failed to underline Pakistan’s increased violation. But they too are emphasising some of Pakistan’s new problems, such as the Kargil operation and the military take-over and have shown little interest in educating the people regarding the basic crises faced by the state.

A third voice is being raised by some civil society actors—peace groups, human rights activists, and newspaper columnists—who argue that by living in the past Pakistan is only adding to the perils it faces. They accuse the establishment of failure to understand the real purpose of Clinton’s trip to South Asia. In their view, it was naive on the part of Pakistan’s policy-makers to expect that Clinton would support their agenda on Kashmir or that while in Pakistan he would say anything that could cancel out his efforts to cultivate India’s friendship. Thus, they blame the establishment for mishandling the Clinton visit itself because after the event the regime has become demonstrably more vulnerable than before.

What makes the official spokespersons’ task even more difficult than they realise is the fact that a section of public opinion, though still a minority, shares Clinton’s perception of Pakistan’s problems and considers a change of course essential in the country’s interest. At the same time, it is worried that India may read in the new US disposition towards it more than it should and become more unmindful of its stake in understanding with Pakistan. It is also necessary to remember that while the USA has announced termination of its special relationship with Pakistan it is unlikely to give up the latter completely. Indications are available that the Clinton-Musharraf talks did not completely fail and that the US was able to extract some assurances the regime is hesitant to make public. Hopes that no Pakistan government, military or civil, will fail to read the writing on the wall are still alive in both Islamabad and Washington.

—The writer is a former Editor of the Pakistan Times.