Pakistan president Asif Ali Zardari, perhaps finding it difficult to convince people of his sincerity in tackling terror, has resorted to going public in an unusual way.
His Op-Ed piece in the New York Times is an exercise in public diplomacy, parrying pressure from India and the United States to act against jihadi elements operating from Pakistan territory. His tone is emotional and personal — witness his invocation of the assassination of his wife at the hand of terrorists — and through this he wishes to assure India and the world that he understands what this scourge is all about.
Ergo, he seems to be saying, trust me, I am on the side of the righteous in this battle.
Zardari is however on a weak wicket. The credibility deficit of Pakistan’s leaders — civil and military — is unfortunately very high. Time and again the country’s establishment has claimed it will not allow terror groups to operate from its soil, only to see another attack taking place.
By now it has become a truism that Pakistan has become the epicentre of global terrorism, even if not all of it may be officially supported or sanctioned. India’s sceptical reaction to the Zardari write-up is understandable. That is why New Delhi is approaching the UN Security Council to impose a ban on Lashkar-e-Taiba and its front organisation, Jamaat-ud-Dawa. That internationalises the issue and will bring diplomatic pressure to bear on Pakistan, a fact that the country’s rulers, whoever they may be, must keep in mind.
Zardari points out that the terrorists wanted to derail the Indo-Pak peace process. A fair point, but one that cannot be made without looking at the context. It implies that there are forces in his own country, many in powerful positions, who may wish this to happen. Indeed, the acts show that Zardari himself may cut little ice with his own country’s military establishment.
In recent times, he has been made to repudicate his comments, such as the suggestion that Pakistan would not use nuclear weapons for first strike option, which was not received well by the army. Then again, he had to back off from his commitment to send the ISI chief to India to discuss the terror attack.
No country can help Pakistan to become a true democrac-— it has to do that by itself. The generals and the politicians will have to see the writing on the wall. The world will not tolerate terrorism, and Pakistan cannot afford to be seen as an epicentre of religious extremism. Letters to the world are fine, but in the real world of politics, emotions cannot be a substitute. Zardari will therefore have to act and turn his words into deeds.
