Terrorism and the U.S Relations with Pakistan - Essay Example

Terrorism and the U.S relations with Pakistan Student’s Name Course Tutor Date Pakistani relations with America Introduction With the killing of the Al-Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden together with the normal anti terrorist activities carried out within Pakistan by the U.S, reactions have been made on what is believed to be ‘going’ too far in a foreign country. The Pakistani government was sought of embarrassed of the U.S’s successful efforts of finding the global terrorist without its efforts. This was just another blow on the deteriorating relations between the two countries. This incident has been followed by many accusations of Pakistan by the U.S of condoning terrorism and giving protection to the Haqqani network, elements of Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations. On this very issue the Foreign minister for Pakistan Hina Rabbani Khar was reacting to comments made by the Joint chief of staff admiral for the U.S Mike Mullen as broadcasted in New York on Geo T.V. Khar claims that the U.S is at risk of losing an important ally if it went on with its accusations on Pakistan of not serious with its efforts to fight militancy something that escalates the relation crisis between the U.S and Pakistan. Mike Mullen had alleged that the top spy agency of Pakistan was in support of attacks against the U.S Embassy and the rest of the places being targeted by the Haqqani network Hassan (200 pg330).Talking about the U.S and Pakistan Khar understands the frustrations that his government faces in being in a war against terrorism with pressure coming from the U.S. he also recognizes the fact that no country can survive alone in this globalized world and that the U.S needs Pakistan in the South Asian region. Khar’s concern as well as that of his government about the involvement of the U.S in Afghanistan could be coming from the desire for the protection of national sovereignty. The operations of the U.S in Afghanistan and the killing of terrorist elements such as Bin Laden was seen as an interference into the internal affairs of Pakistan by the U.S. Sovereignty is seen as the quality to have a supreme and independent authority in a given territory. It is practiced through power to make laws and rule which rests on political facts. According to Khar the way Pakistan deals with Terrorism is an internal issue that would cause deterioration in relations with the U.S if not handled well. On its side the U.S has been accused by its critics of making up reckless statements which are dangerous to diplomatic relations. In its fight against terrorism the U.S uses excessive zeal that seems to annoy many of its enemies. Khar describes the allegations by Mike Mullen as the most serious. Khar in his statements looks at Pakistan as in other words able to ‘punish’ the U.S when he refers to it as nuclear armed and with a Muslim majority. He could be referring to the potential of the Pakistan to unleash military terror against America or to deliberately provide a refuge for Islamic militants who would in turn terrorize the U.S. In the interpretation of the statements made by Khar Pakistan only seeks to protect its territory, maintain internal governance and to handle its internal affairs without external interference. These thoughts have been in the passed expressed by other officials in the Pakistan government especially after the killing of Osama Bin Laden. Protection of the sovereignty of any country is justified but would be controversial where it comes to fighting terrorism. Accusations of not fighting terrorism within a given country would elicit feelings of being bullied by the accusing country. This is the point the Pakistan government is struggling with as expressed through its Foreign minister. The call by the Whitehouse to Pakistan to cut links with the Haqqani network and to shut up the safe havens on its border with Afghanistan infuriated Islamabad. The scenario created as Khar would view it is that of senior giving instructions to a junior. This could create an impression of cultural imperialism in place. Muslims would not stand this kind of treatment given that their relations with the U.S are down. Cultural imperialism according to Hassan (2004.pg.340) is a situation in which one culture dominates another culture. It could come through an attitude or a policy that is deliberate, active and formal which may include military action. Technological and economic factors also play a role in cultural imperialism. The Pakistan government represented by the Foreign minister would be seeing colonialism being employed whereby first world cultural products invade the third world to conquer the local culture. Conquering the local culture for Pakistan could be seen through military and economic dominance. The strong presence of U.S forces in Afghanistan and their strong operative activities has not gone down well with the Pakistani people. Many in Pakistan belie that the U.S is a master of imperialism of all types including that of a cultural nature. As broadcasted on Geo T.V the U.S could be having evidence to its claims that the Haqqani’s attack on the U.S Embassy in Islamabad was supported by the military intelligence of Pakistan. Khar denies these claims vehemently. This is expected of him however given that the Pakistan government would like to be seen to pleasing its people who are largely opposed to the U.S. Khar could not have accepted these claims because as claimed his government could be expecting to make some gains from the operations of the Haqqani network. This is what analysts would want us to believe although there are no official reports to prove this. The Pakistani government is at cross roads because it is seeking to please both the U.S, the Haqqani and Alqaeda networks which are significant for regional politics and finally its citizens who are anti U.S. Khar’s denials would not be carrying any truth after all. This is not to say that the government of Pakistan is giving its support to terrorists. It is only clear that some elements within the government and the country would not want to hear terrorists being fought in their country especially by the U.S. Their resistance of the presence of the U.S forces within their country could be a way of expressing their feelings against what they think is U.S imperialism and domination. Appearing in a U.S media house to warn the U.S of possibly losing an ally may not have been a genuine move. It may have been meant to please the people and government back in Pakistan and the rest of the international community that inclines towards the Islamic nation. His intentions may have been meant to send a message of ‘we are not being ruled by anybody from outside.’ With such denials however, in one way or another Pakistan has not escaped cultural imperialism from the U.S. Khar the Foreign minister for Pakistan threatens the U.S of being on the way of losing an ally. At the same time he says that the U.S cannot do without Pakistan neither can Pakistani people do without the U.S. "You cannot afford to alienate Pakistan; you cannot afford to alienate the Pakistani people. If you are choosing to do so and if they are choosing to do so it will be at their own cost." This is an indication that the relationship is lost will not only cause losses on one side alone. Pakistan depends on the United States for economic and military aid and for acting in the place of a backer on the global stage. What somebody would deduce from Khar’s statements is that Pakistan would not deliberately let go of the relationship. Past records indicate that the U.S spends quite an amount of money in supporting Pakistani military expenditure. This is a boost to them to step up the war on terror. Cultural imperialism would therefore not end immediately because of the loopholes created through mutual existence and which the U.S has used for a number of years to operate in Pakistan. The truth that the U.S cannot do without Pakistan and that the people of Pakistan cannot do without the U.S has been made possible because of globalization. Formerly countries with long distance between them stayed a way from each other without interactions that would cause unnecessary wrangles. Globalization has served to promote terrorism and the media has been found to be responsible for the spread of globalization hence terrorism. The media plays an important role in spreading globalization. Globalization itself defines the process through the economies of regions, cultures and societies integrate through transportation, communication, and spread of technology, migration and trade Appadurai (2001). These five aspects are very important when it comes to terrorism. Khar is right in thinking that the U.S needs his country. Definitely that would be one of the effects of globalization. With globalization every country needs the other and interactions have been made more effective because of improved technology and communication. The media which makes use of the advanced technology and communication has really boosted globalization. The relationship between the U.S and Pakistan could not be possible without the media. The media would destroy or make a relationship. The media has been used to spread the statements and comments made by both the Pakistani Foreign minister and the U.S government about Haqqani network and Pakistan. At the moment media houses broadcast information in a radius of thousands of kilometers. This means their broadcasts are send across the boundaries of so many countries and into other continents. Satellite television and social media such as you tube and facebook have also shortened the distance between people. Communication has increased and people continue to feel closer Kellner (2003). The chief of army staff for Pakistan General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani reacted by saying that the tensions caused could cause repercussions from India all the way to China. This shows how media could be used to pass around the information across south Asia from one end to another within a short time. The chief role of the media is to pass information around. Both the print and electronic media are very effective instruments of globalization. The idea of globalization is brought about by people being able to do things together. With communication through the media things happen because people are aware of what the others are doing very far away. Globalization would be difficult because it is pegged on communication through the media. China is said to be moving closer to Pakistan but remains a firm critic of the U.S. The declaration by Khar that tensions would be caused in the South Asian region is not a strong reason though. The Geo T.V quoted Pakistani Prime Minister as saying that the U.S cannot live without Pakistan. This could be another statement that carries truth but does not come form a country that is ready to break a relationship. It is a chest thumping strategy. The U.S supports Pakistan and congress has been planning to cut this support or make conditions on it more stringent. This could have negative effects on the relations of the two countries but Pakistan would definitely struggle to get other means of survival. Terrorism which the U.S finds hard to allow seems not to bother Pakistan as much as the U.S. The views and reactions of the Pakistan government on accusations by the U.S are baseless according to analysts. Analysts believe that Pakistan the Haqqani are seen by Pakistan as a way of exerting influence on future political settlements within Afghanistan. On matters of terrorism the statements given by Khar and the Prime minister hinting on their position in the controversy are dishonest. The war against terror cannot be won through hypocrisy. The Pakistan government has done a lot and made great sacrifices in the war against terrorism but criticizing those who fight terrorism is not wise Hassan (2004). With globalization gaining more and more roots countries such as Pakistan are at cross roads on how to maintain the balance of local values versus global values. Global values would require that the country strives to fit in the international community by seeking to foster and maintain good relations with the rest of the countries of the globe. The fight against terrorism in Pakistan could present a controversy because what is acceptable at home is not what is accepted by the international community. At home the government and the citizens could rather that the war against terror slowed down. On the contrary the international community would have it go on. Global values class with local values in such areas. In the same broadcast on Geo T.V Khar’s claims display him as a person who is torn in the struggle of local versus global values. Since he says that the Pakistani-U.S relationship will result in losses on both sides if allowed to break, he hints that he is not clear on what he thinks should be done. He does not show openly that he condemns his own people and government for allegedly doing little to fight the Haqqani neither is he willing to announce that Pakistan will cut ties with the U.S for making false accusations Zahid (2007). Values at home could be saying that fighting terrorism is fighting your own people so it should be stopped or carried out selectively because after all terrorists destroy the enemies of the country and the religion. On the other side the values at the international level and in this case the ones held by America could be saying that terrorism should be fought at all costs with every available resource and effort. These two scenarios coexisting together present a dilemma for Khar’s government. Bibliography Appadurai, A. (ed.) 2001, Globalization, Duke University Press, Durham, NC Balnaves, M. Donald J. & Donald S.H. 2001, The Global Media Atlas, British Film Institute, London. Hassan A. 2004, Pakistan's Drift Into Extremism: Allah, The Army, And America's War On Terror, M.E. Sharpe.  Tariq A. 1983, Can Pakistan Survive? The Death of a State, Penguin Books Ltd. Zahid H. 2007, Frontline Pakistan: The Struggle with Militant Islam, New York: Columbia University Press. Kamalipour, Y. R. (ed.) 2002, Global Communication, Wadsworth/Thomson Learning, Belmont, CA McNair, B. 2006, Cultural Chaos: Journalism, News, and Power in a Globalised World, Routledge, New York. Straubhaar, J. 2007, World Television: from Global to Local, Sage, Los Angeles. Steger, M.B. 2003 Globalization: a Very Short Introduction, Oxford University Press, Oxford. Warren, Dr Brad. 2010, Lecture 6, Globalisation and the Media, Burwood Campus, Deakin University, (recorded 17 August 2010 @1600) Read More

In the interpretation of the statements made by Khar Pakistan only seeks to protect its territory, maintain internal governance and to handle its internal affairs without external interference. These thoughts have been in the passed expressed by other officials in the Pakistan government especially after the killing of Osama Bin Laden. Protection of the sovereignty of any country is justified but would be controversial where it comes to fighting terrorism. Accusations of not fighting terrorism within a given country would elicit feelings of being bullied by the accusing country.

This is the point the Pakistan government is struggling with as expressed through its Foreign minister. The call by the Whitehouse to Pakistan to cut links with the Haqqani network and to shut up the safe havens on its border with Afghanistan infuriated Islamabad. The scenario created as Khar would view it is that of senior giving instructions to a junior. This could create an impression of cultural imperialism in place. Muslims would not stand this kind of treatment given that their relations with the U.

S are down. Cultural imperialism according to Hassan (2004.pg.340) is a situation in which one culture dominates another culture. It could come through an attitude or a policy that is deliberate, active and formal which may include military action. Technological and economic factors also play a role in cultural imperialism. The Pakistan government represented by the Foreign minister would be seeing colonialism being employed whereby first world cultural products invade the third world to conquer the local culture.

Conquering the local culture for Pakistan could be seen through military and economic dominance. The strong presence of U.S forces in Afghanistan and their strong operative activities has not gone down well with the Pakistani people. Many in Pakistan belie that the U.S is a master of imperialism of all types including that of a cultural nature. As broadcasted on Geo T.V the U.S could be having evidence to its claims that the Haqqani’s attack on the U.S Embassy in Islamabad was supported by the military intelligence of Pakistan.

Khar denies these claims vehemently. This is expected of him however given that the Pakistan government would like to be seen to pleasing its people who are largely opposed to the U.S. Khar could not have accepted these claims because as claimed his government could be expecting to make some gains from the operations of the Haqqani network. This is what analysts would want us to believe although there are no official reports to prove this. The Pakistani government is at cross roads because it is seeking to please both the U.

S, the Haqqani and Alqaeda networks which are significant for regional politics and finally its citizens who are anti U.S. Khar’s denials would not be carrying any truth after all. This is not to say that the government of Pakistan is giving its support to terrorists. It is only clear that some elements within the government and the country would not want to hear terrorists being fought in their country especially by the U.S. Their resistance of the presence of the U.S forces within their country could be a way of expressing their feelings against what they think is U.

S imperialism and domination. Appearing in a U.S media house to warn the U.S of possibly losing an ally may not have been a genuine move. It may have been meant to please the people and government back in Pakistan and the rest of the international community that inclines towards the Islamic nation. His intentions may have been meant to send a message of ‘we are not being ruled by anybody from outside.’ With such denials however, in one way or another Pakistan has not escaped cultural imperialism from the U.S. Khar the Foreign minister for Pakistan threatens the U.

S of being on the way of losing an ally. At the same time he says that the U.S cannot do without Pakistan neither can Pakistani people do without the U.S. "You cannot afford to alienate Pakistan; you cannot afford to alienate the Pakistani people.

Read More