The major cities of Pakistan were set ablaze by huge demonstrations with protestors chanting slogans such as “Quit the war on terror.” Viewed by the nation as yet another radical violation of its sovereignty, the loss of 24 soldiers near the Pakistan-Afghanistan last Saturday inflamed a nation already irate with its government’s utter subordination to the US.
This rage was conveyed to US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton by Pakistani Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani Khar, and to the US Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman General Martin Dempsey by Pakistani Army Chief General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani.
According to military spokesperson Major General Athar Abbas, the encounter continued for two hours, during which calls to NATO to put an end to this atrocity were ignored. Correspondingly, Islamabad has deliberated ending its diplomatic ties with US and halting all US supply lines from Pakistan to Afghanistan.
Pakistan’s stance is now being supported by China, with the Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi confirming that China would “firmly support Pakistan’s efforts to defend its national independence, sovereignty, and territorial integrity.” Calling the NATO assault as a “serious incident,” he urged that it “should be thoroughly investigated and be handled properly.”
Meanwhile, the Pakistani government remains adamant that such events rightly ignite the population and discourage them against supporting the ‘War on Terror.’ Nonetheless, Gilani has been very sheepish and ambivalent in his comments, stating that relations “could continue to be based on mutual respect and mutual interest.” He added that he would await recommendations from the Pakistani Parliament’s National Security Committee.
The US on the other hand is covertly enlisting Pakistani cooperation in negotiating a peace deal with the Taliban. It can be assumed therefore that the US tolerance of Pakistani ties with networks, such as the Haqqani, is because it needs Pakistan to help the US tame the formidable resistance to its bloody occupation next door.
Nevertheless, the US and Pakistan enjoy a considerably ambiguous relationship in this regard, ranging from the US employment of Pakistan as a proxy during the 1980s to support the mujahideen against the former USSR, to forming an alliance with Pakistan to hunt down the same mujahideen, now operating as the Taliban and so-called Al Qaeda.
Provided Islamabad proceeds with the curtailment of NATO supplies into Afghanistan, Pakistan-US relations will experience yet another jolt of volatility, as more than half of NATO supplies find their way into Afghanistan via Pakistan. Pakistani claims of doing so are fuelled by incredible fear amongst the political establishment of being confronted by the opposition and corresponding vengeance of its masses. With Pakistanis already up in arms by the Raymond Davis incident and Osama execution, such fears are rational and, more importantly, central in the context of the country’s political turmoil.
Provided Islamabad proceeds with the curtailment of NATO supplies into Afghanistan, Pakistan-US relations will experience yet another jolt of volatility, as more than half of NATO supplies find their way into Afghanistan via Pakistan. Pakistani claims of doing so are fuelled by incredible fear amongst the political establishment of being confronted by the opposition and corresponding vengeance of its masses. With Pakistanis already up in arms by the Raymond Davis incident and Osama execution, such fears are rational and, more importantly, central in the context of the country’s political turmoil.
Adding further to the list of fears is the government’s insecurity regarding the army. Also fed up with US heavy-handedness, the army has made no efforts to conceal the disgust it feels with the current political shenanigans of empire and their local collaborators, and of course we're supposed to forget the Pakistani military's central role in creating and sustaining such a neo-colonial relationship.
