The Staggers

The New Statesman’s rolling politics blog

The dangers of oversimplifying the situation in Pakistan

Many of those who are quick to condemn the country have a limited understanding of its structures and attitudes.

By Samira Shackle Published 03 May 2011 10:44

In the aftermath of the killing of Osama Bin Laden, big questions have emerged over Pakistan's role and its relations with the US.

John Brennan, a counterterrorism adviser to Barack Obama, told journalists that it was "inconceivable" that Bin Laden did not enjoy a "support system" in Pakistan. While both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have emphasised Pakistan's importance in fighting al-Qaeda, the circumstances of his discovery are damaging.

Carl Levin, a Democrat who heads the Senate armed services committee, summed up these concerns at a press conference:

I think the Pakistani army and intelligence have a lot of questions to answer given the location, the length of time and the apparent fact that this facility was actually built for Bin Laden and its closeness to the central location of the Pakistani army.

From the Pakistani side, there are questions, too – the US reportedly did not trust the ISI with news of Bin Laden's whereabouts, which will not go down well, given existing tension over increased numbers of CIA agents in the country and public anger at ongoing incursions on Pakistani soil in the form of drone attacks.

The former Pakistani president Pervez Musharraf told CNN:

America coming to our territory and taking action is a violation of our sovereignty. Handling and execution of the operation [by US forces] is not correct. The Pakistani government should have been kept in the loop.

Clearly, there are murky waters here – and many questions that might not be answered publicly. Logging on to Twitter yesterday, I was disturbed to see many tweets of the "Get them!" variety, calling for action against Pakistan. But many of those passing comment clearly have very little knowledge of the country's state systems and the atmosphere there.

I've just returned from a trip to Karachi, where I was struck by quite how prevalent anti-American sentiment is. What might look to westerners like public sympathy for extremists is more often based on support for those holding their ground against the west, rather than agreement with extremist ideas. In an excellent article in today's Financial Times, Ahmed Rashid suggests that now might be the time to challenge this narrative:

He was a hero to some Pakistanis because he defied the west and because the country is desperately short of heroes. Perhaps Pakistan's leaders can now have the courage to turn around the mythology and show what Bin Laden really was – a political leech who introduced suicide bombing, helped to create the Pakistani Taliban and promoted intolerance in a country that was at relative peace with itself until he appeared on the scene.

Even the heavy death toll inflicted on Pakistan by terrorists is put at America's door – with some justification, given that the Taliban were all but absent from the country until the US invaded Afghanistan. The country has been ravaged by the war on terror. Since 2001, terrorists have killed nearly 15,000 people there – a number that doubles to more than 30,000 when counterterror violence is taken into account.

However, effectively challenging the perception of Bin Laden as a martyr is difficult, given that there is essentially no cohesive state in Pakistan. The state itself – as in central government – is remarkably weak, because Pakistan is and remains a tribal society, more dependent on local feudal powers than central systems. This goes some way towards explaining why it took so long to capture Bin Laden.

The separation of powers, held by varied forces in Pakistani society – the military, the ISI, the government and local tribes – certainly helps to explain the country's sometimes contradictory actions. This is why the government can co-operate with the US and sanction drone attacks even as the ISI fails to track extremists.

The intelligence service has a long history of alliance with extremist groups and, like the military, is reluctant to fight its own people. In the Times today, Anatol Lieven (£) draws a distinction between the ISI's "hard" treatment of international terrorists and its more tolerant attitude to home-grown insurgents.

What is beyond question is that the relationship between Islamabad and Washington is vital to both sides. Oversimplifying the situation on the ground in Pakistan with a reductive "us and them" narrative serves no one – least of all the people of Pakistan, who are the most likely targets for retaliation attacks.

Special Offer: Get 12 issues of New Statesman magazine for just £12

Tags: Pakistan

More from Samira Shackle

13 comments

Sat, 2011-06-04 22:08 — Herbert (not verified)

Pakistan is an illegal racist apartheid state that has no right to exist.. Millions of innocent Hindus and Sikhs were ethnically cleansed at it's illegal creation. They have a right to return. End this diseased racist state now

Wed, 2011-05-04 23:03 — DAULAT RAM

Samira:

Thanks for this defence of alliance with Islamist terrorism.

As you say:

"The [Pakistani} intelligence service has a long history of alliance with extremist groups and, like the military, is reluctant to fight its own people."

Precisely. The NS of today, thoroughly taken over by hard-core Islamists, is determined not to fight its "own" people.

Moving how suddenly in THIs context - - when Islamist interests demand it - the NS is so soliciotous about American interests!

Tue, 2011-05-03 19:20 — czred (not verified)

US had a reason to suspect Pakistan. If they had informed them, Pakistani's would have made sure that Bin Laden escaped. Pakistan and its spy agencies have never respected the sovereignty of other countries - especially their neighbours both Afghanistan and India. They used Afghanistan for strategic depth and created a mess for poor Afghans. They sent terrorists into Mumbai (Nov 2008) who were communicating directly with their spy masters sitting in Islamabad. Now they are shedding crocodile tears about sovereignty.

Sat, 2011-05-07 03:55 — Waqas Habib (not verified)

Hello,
Everybody her is saying that pakistan should be punished right under a sensible article. Your comments show that either you don't understand whatever is being said in the column or you don't care about it which in a sense makes you the same hardcore, fundamentalists because you don't want to except the reality or on ground situation in pakistan. I think first you should understand the whole scenario and then talk about it. Don't jump to the conclusion directly.

Sun, 2011-05-08 14:50 — Mohammad Merchant (not verified)

I think Pakistan has done a lot to help America's intrest in this region.First to get rid of soviet union from Afganistan.Second helping America in Afghanistan war.Almost 600 Al-quaida activist arrested in Pakistan including shaikh Khalid Mehmood.In return Pakistan has been left alone after soviet union left Afghanistan.Even Pakistan has been penalized.Every country has right to look after it's intrest.Due to this war in terror Pakistan has destablished itself.Moreover even now America is talking about stoping or put conditions on aid.This once again signal of America verbally accepting Pakistan's contribution in this war but practically it is not trusting Pakistan.They may have their reasons.Fact is that Pakistan has lost around 3000 military persons and around 30.000 civilians in this war.The aid it received inretrun is insignificant compare to losses.Even Pakistan has compromise its sovernity.

This is all because of mistrust between two nations.As far as accusing ISI helping Talaban and Al-quaida is not true.Because to get a inside information of these organization some type of contact is require.We should not forget that MI5 and CIA unable to detect terrorist activities in their respective countries.Even not finding BIN-LADHEN is also views suspicious to Pakistan.We forgot that America has taken how many years to find UNIBOMBER in its own country inspite of so many agencies involved and latest technology at it's diposal. So instead of blaming Pakistan everyone should realize the importance of Pakistan to erradict these organizations.

They should give free trade status to Pakistan to export in EU STATES AND AMERICA.They should provide technology to help in fighting with these elements in Pakistan and Afghanistan.They also help in resolving KASHMIR problem.This is the only way to getback American trust in pakistan public.Instead of giving financial help they should invest in producing cheap electricity in Pakistan also to build schools and hospitals to errdicate it's number one problem of poverty and health care.

Afghanistan war can not be won by simply military action.Pakistan should be involve fully along with Saudi Arabia and America in settlement of this war.Pakistan future intrest in Afghanistan must be taken care.It has a long border with Afghanistan.Pakistan can also play a part in dealing with Iran.So in nutshell Pakistan's importance must be recognized whole heartedly by everyone who love to have a peace in this region.

Tue, 2011-05-03 11:18 — swatantra nandanwar

Any State founded on fundamentalist religious principles is going to be in trouble in the long run. Such States defy reason. Pakistan is one such State and has brought rouble on itslf since its inception. Such States fuel religious bigotry. Iran and Saudi and Israel are also such States. Their future will be the same as Pakistan.

Wed, 2011-05-18 08:41 — D.Bose (not verified)

Mohamed Merchant:
What good Pakistan did for Afghanistan by 'driving out the Soviets'.

First Soviets went out in 1989 when the situation became stable in Afghanistan and Afghan Army was in a position to defend their country against Pakistanis. Pakistanis never could drive out the Soviets. Then what has happened.

When pro-Wesren Russia was born, Yeltsin cut off even oil-supplies to Afghanistan and Pakistan occupied Afghanistan until 2001, destroyed it completely.

Do the Afghans or Baluch want Pakistanis? They do not want any Pakistanis.

Thus, if the West again hand over Afghanistan to Pakistan to leave it forever, there will never be any peace.

Similarly Saudi Arabia, UAE or China have nothing to do with Afghanistan either. Their rulers are illegitimate.

If Pakistan never invaded Afghanistan in 1978 but allowed it to exist as a socialist country, it would be just as prosperous today as Uzbeckistan or Turkmenistan.

The West in collaboration with Pakistan destroyed Afghanistan.

Wed, 2011-05-04 14:06 — Mr. Divine (not verified)

I'm still thinking that the Pakistan 'government' didn't know. There was a big reward.

Obviously Osama didn't show his face. So he didn't go outside the house. How about those children that are kept in cellars for years? People don't know about them. I think it is possible to keep it very quiet where he was hiding without any government 'help'.

Tue, 2011-05-03 13:07 — TheThinker50 (not verified)

Pakistan was not founded on fundamentalist religious principles. It was the result of fundamentalism among prominent local politicians and their broken promises and principles of 'get what you can out of the b------- but now that we're close to getting away from colonisation make sure they don't get any of the rewards. Sad, that you publicly spout such prejudice which is totally anti-Islamic but don't have the guts to name it.

Fri, 2011-05-06 07:33 — Shaid (not verified)

Mr. John Holiday or whoever you are, I am totally suspicious of people who hide behind other names. However, what can you say about a race that is hiding behind others for 5,000 years. It is time to clean the Gunga

Sat, 2011-05-07 18:50 — Hemant Kumar (not verified)

Pakistan supported by US and China, with stolen nuclear technology has become more beligerant and arrogant. Nuclear arsenal gave then a sense of (false) strength. Need for assistance to US to fight war in Afganistan was exploited again by Pakistani Generals/ ISI/ politicians with more aid. Lies have been their backbone despite proofs, and they could not be trusted with their words, but acts. Acts have shown their support to terrorism in India, and elsewhere. Most islamic terrorists were trained in Pakistan. It's beligerance is due to the fact that Army will have no importance if the border issue is resolved. But people cannot concentrate on thier livelihood, but get blasted with home grown and state supported. trained terrorists. Why blame others for own deeds. Pakistan knew about the hideouts, and people around the world are not fools.

Fri, 2011-05-06 08:18 — Stuart Eels (not verified)

Shaid

Mr John Holiday sounds as mad as OBL but the fact remains that no one now trusts Pakistan.

Mr Divine

So not only OBL hid away but his various wifes, children and armed guards, oh and his children invited local kids in to play and a Doctor regularly came to treat him! All this yards away from a military camp! Come into the real world!

Wed, 2011-05-04 19:41 — John Holliday (not verified)

Samira,
Any one who is still defending Pakistan is equally complicit in the crime. Pakistan is a victim of terrorism in only as much as a suicide bomber is the victim of his act. It doesn't matter what the people in Pakistan think. Neither the people nor the govt. has any control over their foreign policy. Their foreign policy is decided by the the stubborn Generals who are hell-bent to fight their eastern neighbor by any means. They beg for our aid, provide sanctuaries to the Taliban. They've American blood on their hands. There is one solution to this problem - Launch pre-emptive attacks on Pakistan's nuclear arsenal using TomHawk cruise missiles and get out of the region. India will teach them a good lesson in conventional war.
Down with terrorism.