http://blogs.reuters.com/pakistan/2008/03/21/obama-on-pakistan-commitment-or=
-contradiction/
March 21st, 2008
Obama on Pakistan: commitment or contradiction?
By Myra MacDonald
For those who missed, it=92s worth looking closely at Barack Obama=92s
latest comments on Pakistan made in a speech this week in which he
repeats a call for the United States to shift its focus from Iraq to
Afghanistan and Pakistan. =94This is the area where the 9/11 attacks
were planned. This is where Osama bin Laden and his top lieutenants
still hide. This is where extremism poses its greatest threat.=94
His plan is to rethink U.S. policy towards Pakistan =96 which has
traditionally depended on cooperation with the military rather than
civilian governments =97 to bolster the democratic aspirations of the
Pakistani people, condition aid to Pakistan on its action against al
Qaeda, and show Pakistan that America is on its side.
But then comes the rub. If the United States has intelligence about
al Qaeda targets hiding in Pakistan then America should act if
Pakistan will not, or cannot do so, he says. So far that has meant
sending in unmanned Predator aircraft to fire missiles at suspected
Islamist hideouts, often leading to civilian casualties and outraging
Pakistanis who feel their sovereignty has been violated.
So is there a contradiction in Obama=92s commitment to Pakistan? Can the
United States win over the people if it is also firing missiles at
targets in its territory? Here is the whole excerpt:
=93For years, we have supported stability over democracy in Pakistan,
and gotten neither. The core leadership of al Qaeda has a safe-haven
in Pakistan. The Taliban are able to strike inside Afghanistan and
then return to the mountains of the Pakistani border. Throughout
Pakistan, domestic unrest has been rising. The full democratic
aspirations of the Pakistani people have been too long denied. A child
growing up in Pakistan, more often than not, is taught to see America
as a source of hate - not hope.
=93This is why I stood up last summer and said we cannot base our entire
Pakistan policy on President Musharraf. Pakistan is our ally, but we
do our own security and our ally no favors by supporting its President
while we are seen to be ignoring the interests of the people. Our
counter-terrorism assistance must be conditioned on Pakistani action
to root out the al Qaeda sanctuary. And any U.S. aid not directly
needed for the fight against al Qaeda or to invest in the Pakistani
people should be conditioned on the full restoration of Pakistan=92s
democracy and rule of law.
File photo of child at Benazir Bhutto=92s grave=93The choice is not
between Musharraf and Islamic extremists. As the recent legislative
elections showed, there is a moderate majority of Pakistanis, and they
are the people we need on our side to win the war against al Qaeda.
That is why we should dramatically increase our support for the
Pakistani people - for education, economic development, and democratic
institutions. That child in Pakistan must know that we want a better
life for him, that America is on his side, and that his interest in
opportunity is our interest as well. That=92s the promise that America
must stand for.
=93And for his sake and ours, we cannot tolerate a sanctuary for
terrorists who threaten America=92s homeland and Pakistan=92s stability.
If we have actionable intelligence about high-level al Qaeda targets
in Pakistan=92s border region, we must act if Pakistan will not or
cannot. Senator Clinton, Senator McCain, and President Bush have all
distorted and derided this position, suggesting that I would invade or
bomb Pakistan. This is politics, pure and simple. My position, in
fact, is the same pragmatic policy that all three of them have
belatedly - if tacitly - acknowledged is one we should pursue. Indeed,
it was months after I called for this policy that a top al Qaeda
leader was taken out in Pakistan by an American aircraft. And remember
that the same three individuals who now criticize me for supporting a
targeted strike on the terrorists who carried out the 9/11 attacks,
are the same three individuals that supported an invasion of Iraq - a
country that had nothing to do with 9/11. =93
|
