The threats hurled at Pakistan by US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton come as a surprise. Clinton threatened ‘very serious consequences’ if a terror attempt like the failed Time Square bombing were to succeed and were found to have originated in Pakistan. Her utterances were entirely uncalled for considering that no credible linkages have been established between the alleged bomber and terrorists in North Waziristan nor is there any evidence to suggest that this failed attempt occurred due to any lapse or negligence on the part of Pakistan.

“No credible evidence has been found so far that the Pakistani-American man accused in the Times Square bombing attempt received any serious terrorist training from the Pakistani Taliban or another radical Islamic group, six U.S. officials said Thursday” said McClatchy Newspapers, Washington. The paper quoted US officials as having said, "It's a lot of speculation at this point." It quoted another official who said that Faisal Shahzad may have, at the most, had "incidental contact" with a terrorist organization.

This makes sense. Had Shahzad received proper training from the terrorists, who are known to possess professional expertise in making and using explosive devices, he would not have done such an immature job. Claims by the US Attorney General Eric Holder of having conclusive evidence implicating Pakistani Taliban of having facilitated this attack is vague and does not cut much ice, particularly when the episode and Clinton’s statement look more like tactics to pressurize Pakistan Army into launching operations in North Waziristan.

Pakistan Army has categorically stated that it has no evidence yet to establish Shahzad’s link with the terrorists in North Waziristan. General David Petraeus after his meeting with General Kayani during a rush visit to Islamabad last week also described Shahzad a “lone wolf”. And then shortly afterwards came the denial from TTP of such connection, refuting an earlier claim on its behalf that it says was dubiously made by an unrecognized caller. If TTP was indeed involved, it is not understood why it would refuse to take credit. 

With no evidence so far conclusively proving involvement of TTP or other terror groups in North Waziristan, if Secretary Clinton insists on drawing conclusions of her own and chooses to threaten Pakistan, she is irresponsibly jumping the gun. Not stopping at that, she goes on to blame Pakistan of playing a double game in the past. When relationship between Pakistan and the US is already edgy, which President Obama claims to be strengthening, such rush to judgment on her part will not only seriously harm the ongoing cooperation between the two countries to root out terrorism from this region but further intensify anti American sentiment gripping this country. Known to be hawkish towards Pakistan, perhaps in her estimation it amounts to a double game if Pakistan refuses to carry out orders that are suicidal, and it is no double game when America ditches an ally in times of need.  
 
Secretary Clinton’s attitude can be interpreted to symbolize three things. Firstly, the much trumpeted long term understandings reached by the American leadership and army commanders with their Pakistani counterparts over last year is merely an arrangement of convenience for the Americans, liable to be brushed aside when needed. Secondly, the American administration will use this incident to rebuild American public opinion in favor of escalation of war. And thirdly, it will insist that Pakistan Army undertakes the North Waziristan operation now, whether or not it has the capacity at this point.

This is reminiscent of the pressure brought upon President Musharraf to join the ‘war on terror’ in 1971. In retrospect, Musharraf committed a mistake in submitting to the American diktat then, and it would again be a mistake if the present government agrees to launch the N. Waziristan operation under pressure now. Such an act is bound to trigger manifold increase in terrorist activities, undermining Pakistan’s security interests. Pakistan’s political leadership must firmly reject such pressures and even decline military aid if it is tied to this course of action.  

In any case Clinton’s statement does not auger well for the credibility of President Obama in the eyes of Pakistanis whom he assured in his December 2009 policy speech: “In the past, we too often defined our relationship with Pakistan narrowly. Those days are over.... The Pakistani people must know America will remain a strong supporter of Pakistan’s security and prosperity long after the guns have fallen silent, so that the great potential of its people can be unleashed”. If Clinton’s threats have President Obama’s consent, sadly he is proving too unreliable too soon. 

Secretary Clinton’s statement has also put at risk the security and well being of the Americans of Pakistani origin that have remained vulnerable to public backlash since 9/11. Although most politicians have exercised caution, loose talk by some has caused serious implications for the Muslim and Pakistani communities in the US. Incidents such as those of Shahzad and statements such as those of Clinton come back to haunt these communities and exacerbate the security risks, humiliation and discrimination they have suffered for nine years. Among other reprisals after 9/11, Pakistani merchants in New York recall a drive-by shooting at a Pakistani restaurant in Brooklyn that shook the community and caused the restaurant to close. 

A Reuter story of May 7 states:

“Pakistani merchants and job seekers in the US, still reeling from economic hardship since the Sept. 11 attacks of 2001, are posing as Indians to avoid discrimination in the wake of the Times Square bomb attempt.”

According to census data, some 210,410 people of Pakistani origin reside in the US. In Brooklyn NY, home to one of the largest Pakistani populations in the US, Reuter story adds: “business is scant at the various grocery, halal meat and sweet cake shops since a Pakistani-American was suspected in the Times Square plot. More than 100 businesses along Coney Island Avenue have closed due to a 30% drop in business since 2001”. It also talks of an American man of Pakistani descent in Washington coming under police suspicion this week while buying garden fertilizer for his family home. The Times Square car bomb contained a non-explosive type of fertilizer.

The Pakistani-American community has become suspect mainly due to the paranoia about Islam and Pakistan craftily created in the minds of the common Americans by the Christian right and the corporate media controlled by Jewish interests and irresponsible attitude of rightwing Republicans. Add to this mix the frequent manipulations by agencies of the federal government who have their own axe to grind. The information is given a twist, insignificant incidents of violence in Pakistan are blown out of proportion into headline news and Islam is projected as a religion that promotes terrorism, with insinuations that both of these are a threat to American security.

Secretary Clinton is no doubt aware that the administration she represents is committed to the American people for the withdrawal of its troops to begin by middle of 2011. President Obama cannot face the American voters in 2012 unless American troops begin to head home from Afghanistan and the war starts winding down. He has already declared that Pakistan would be the centerpiece of American policy in the closing years of this war. America now needs Pakistan as much as Pakistan needs America. President Obama has given a long term commitment for a mutually beneficial relationship between the US and Pakistan. Why then should she appear to be at odds with President Obama’s declared policy? Why should she be taking an aggressive stance against Pakistan when Pakistan is cooperating with the US to the fullest possible extent, remaining within the bounds of its own national security interests?

Is there a method in the madness?

Read his bio and more analyses and essays by
Axis of Logic Columnist, Shahid R. Siddiqi