U.S. Diplomat To Pakistani Journalist: You're Spreading Anti-Americanism Published : December 9, 2007 Breaking News : The government of Shaukat Aziz almost expelled a U.S. diplomat from Pakistan. Two Americans have already been deported, and ambassadors have been warned not to interfere in our affairs. The funny thing is, the American media is solely responsible for spreading 'anti-Pakistanism' all over the world. Yet a U.S. diplomat had the nerve to accuse me of spreading anti-Americanism in Pakistan.By AHMED QURAISHISunday, 9 December ISLAMABAD, Pakistan—For all those who thought the Pakistani State is a soft punching bag, I have breaking news: No More. Pakistan has expelled two American citizens trying to incite unrest in the country, and foreign diplomats – especially the American and British ambassadors – have been put on notice: Do not test our patience on how some of you have been taking sides in domestic Pakistani politics. But that is not all. Now my sources are telling me that the Pakistani federal government came close in November to expelling an American diplomat from Pakistan, in a move that could have set precedence in the longstanding Pak-American relationship. Somewhere in the middle of all this, an angry U.S. diplomat accused me of spreading anti-Americanism through my television show and columns, but I will come to that in a second. Let me tell you first about how unprecedented American interference in Pakistani politics led to a sharp reaction inside the Pakistani government. A former Pakistani official has told me that the government of Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz "came very close" to taking a decision to expel a U.S. diplomat from Pakistan. The controversy centered on the role of U.S. ambassador Anne Patterson and the American consul general in Lahore Bryant Hunt. A rowdy federal cabinet meeting in the last few days before the government of Prime Minister Aziz packed up on Nov. 15 saw at least two federal Pakistani ministers strongly protesting the way Ambassador Patterson and Mr. Hunt conducted themselves publicly. Prime Minister Aziz listened intently as one Pakistani federal minister accused his colleague Khurshid Mehmood Kasuri, the Foreign Minister, of "failing to stand up to [ U.S. Secretary of State] Condoleezza Rice." "She has been bypassing [Kasuri] and having her office directly contact the [Pakistani] President's office," the angry minister told Mr. Aziz. "Kasuri failed to confront her" about this violation of protocol and diplomatic etiquette. What provoked the Pakistani ministers was the sight of U.S. ambassador to Pakistan publicly taking sides in domestic Pakistani politics. On Nov. 6, she visited the Election Commission of Pakistan and tried to embarrass the Musharraf administration by standing on the Commission's doorstep and telling the reporters she wanted to see the election schedule issued "as soon as possible." Around the same time, she visited the office of GEO, a private Pakistani television network locked in a dispute with the Pakistani government over a Code of Conduct that is already ratified by more than 35 other broadcasters across the nation. Ms. Patterson decided to publicly side with the network against the Pakistani government. When some prominent Pakistanis objected to this, the U.S. diplomats ratcheted up the pressure. U.S. consul general in Karachi received orders to visit the office of another television network, ARY, that faced a similar problem [but ratified the code later and restored its operations]. And then another U.S. diplomat, Ms. Elizabeth Colton, made a very public visit to an FM radio station that refused to recognize the Code. The U.S. embassy issued a statement that sympathized with the station's position. Bryan Hunt, the U.S. consul general in Lahore, picked the gate of the house of a rights activist as a venue for reading out a list of demands from the U.S. government to the Pakistani government. His style, according to many observers, including those who watched the video footage of this event, was "arrogant and condescending." In fact, it was so outrageous that Dr. Shireen Mazari, the director of Islamabad Institute of Strategic Studies, wrote in the daily The News asking the Pakistani government to declare Mr. Hunt Persona Non Grata, which basically means expulsion from the country. Mr. Ahmed Reza Kasuri, a member of President Musharraf's legal team, made a similar demand, while S. M. Zafar, widely known for his independent views, publicly said that in his long political career he had never seen this level of foreign interference in Pakistan's domestic matters. The message that most Pakistani observers were receiving was loud and clear: Interference in Pakistani politics will continue. Pakistan was beginning to look like Panama, where Washington intervened to arrest a president and replace him with another. Prime Minister Aziz deferred taking a decision during the cabinet meeting on how to react to this situation. But something had to be done. The Musharraf administration had detected disturbing signs that some foreign actors were colluding with domestic elements to create conditions in Islamabad for regime-change. Information was pouring in from multiple sources indicating unusual and unprecedented levels of organization and mobilization behind the unrest in Pakistan over the past few months. All the signs of trouble eerily resembled the 'color revolutions' encouraged by western governments in several countries in Eastern Europe and Central Asia, where media was used to exert pressure while a network of activists on the ground, run under a chain of command extending all the way into the communities of lawyers, students, and union activists was mobilized to create turmoil in order to bring down the government. This recipe worked in Ukraine, Kazakhstan and elsewhere. In Pakistan, the plan appeared to be centered on creating enough chaos to bring down the Musharraf administration and easing someone like Mrs. Benazir Bhutto into power, who, many American officials feel, would do a better job at serving U.S. strategic interests in the region. The Pakistani government acted in time to foil this plan. Emergency rule was declared on Nov. 3, giving Islamabad more powers to stabilize pockets of unrest in different parts of the country, including along our border with Afghanistan, a neighbor that has become a staging ground for tactical and psychological operations meant to destabilize Pakistan. Part of the new game plan is to assert Pakistan's authority and dispel the misperception that Pakistan is some kind of a 'soft state'. The worrying thing is that Washington was trying to give Ambassador Patterson in Pakistan the same role that David Satterfield, a former envoy, played in Lebanon between 1998 and 2001, or the one played by ambassador Edward Gnehm in Kuwait following the 1991 Desert Storm. In both cases, both U.S. ambassadors aggressively interfered to engineer domestic change. And I am not passing judgment here. When ambassador Gnehm was chosen to be the U.S. envoy to Saudi Arabia by mid 1990s, the Saudis balked at the American choice and Riyadh flatly refused to accept him. The Saudis were not going to tolerate the kind of interference Mr. Gnehm exercised with impunity in Kuwait. Riyadh stayed without a U.S. ambassador for several months until Washington found a replacement for Genhm.Considering all this, Islamabad has decided to get tough. We want good relations with the Americans but will not become a guinea pig for anyone. Two U.S. rights activists were deported from Lahore last week because they were encouraging ordinary Pakistanis to create unrest. On Dec. 3, U.S. diplomats were stunned when Pakistani authorities refused to give Ambassador Patterson permission to meet the detained lawyer Aitzaz Ahsan. Around this time, the U.S. media turned the heat on Pakistan, placing the country, its military, its intelligence community and its strategic and nuclear programs under a 'media siege'. American reporters and commentators were churning out reports and editorials about how Washington gave Islamabad $10 billion dollars and yet the Pakistanis were not ready to allow Mrs. Benazir Bhutto, the American choice, a chance in government. I told the viewers on my television show that the Americans were not doing us any favor by giving us $10 billion in aid since 9/11. Some $6 billion dollars of that amount was in exchange for logistical services that Pakistan provided the United States in the war on terror, things like using air bases and other facilities. And in the larger picture, it is Pakistan's help that enabled Washington to secure a considerable political and military footprint for itself in energy rich Central Asia after 9/11. Besides, I have seen the result of American meddling in Lebanon and Kuwait. The former is still a mess, where Ambassador David Satterfield's interference has left behind a country where a militia – Hezbollah – is stronger than the State. And the latter, Kuwait, happens to be at the bottom of the list of emerging economies in the Gulf, thanks to Ambassador Edward Gnehm who insisted back in 1992 that Kuwait needs to concentrate on democracy first. This resulted in Qatar, Bahrain, Abu Dhabi, Dubai and Oman using their stability for economic development, leaving behind Kuwait to deal with successive unstable elected governments since 1992. So while the people in Dubai and Qatar are enjoying the fruits of stability and development, the Kuwaitis are grappling with a two-month-old government that is already on the verge of collapse. We don't want to see Pakistan going through the same experience. And Pakistanis don't want unwarranted American advice or interference. Makes sense. But my opinions drew a sharp reaction from Ms. Elizabeth Colton, the U.S. press attaché. In a telephone conversation, she accused me of
- 'Orchestrating' an anti-American campaign.
- Spreading anti-Americanism in Pakistan when the U.S. government is not spreading 'anti-Pakistanism' in America.
- Not understanding that U.S. diplomats are simply repeating their government's positions.
- And, in the end, she asked, "Does President Musharraf know about what you're doing? Will he approve of this?" My answers were simple:
- The American media is the only media in the world that is spreading 'anti-Pakistanism' internationally. The American media, and not anyone else, is telling the world that maybe the Pakistanis are unable to safeguard their nuclear bombs, which is untrue. The American media is the only media in the world that is comparing us to Iraq, and it is American politicians and commentators who are calling us a bigger threat than Iran.
- The American diplomats, by openly interfering in our politics, are basically telling the world that we are a 'banana republic'.
- Why should President Musharraf know about a television anchor criticizing U.S. diplomats? Does President Bush know when the Washington Post, for example, publishes a report about U.S. plans to seize Pakistani strategic assets? Does Mr. Gordon Brown know about a British newspaper using an expletive with the name of the President of Pakistan?Basically it all comes down to this: President Musharraf has clearly told Washington on the day he began his second term that "it is going to be our way." The Americans also need to understand that they cannot achieve their objectives in the region while trampling on Pakistan's legitimate strategic, economic and security interests. Pakistan has been, and continues to be, a dependable friend and ally. But, in return, choosing the future head of the Pakistani government and running war games on seizing our nuclear assets are not exactly things that generate confidence between friends. Washington has nothing to gain by destabilizing Pakistan. Mr. Musharraf's warning in this context to CNN's Wolf Blitzer on Nov. 9 is worth remembering: "Do not destabilize Pakistan. You will regret it."
by: Ahmad Qureshi
