To go or not to go, US disucsses Pak again

To go or not to go, US disucsses Pak again
CHIDANAND RAJGHATTA

WASHINGTON, FEBRUARY 23: A titanic struggle within the Washington establishment about whether President Clinton should stop over in Pakistan during his trip to the Indian subcontinent will be settled this week amid increasing concerns about his security and a gradual acknowledgement here of Islamabad's patronage of terrorism.

National Security Advisor Sandy Berger has convened a White House meeting to weigh the matter, though sources say the final call will be made by the President himself. Given the monumental pressure brought upon the establishment, it will be a small miracle if he decides not to go.

But sources said the decision will be held back ``as long as possible'' to avoid heartburn in the two constituencies fighting the battle in Washington. The White House has been deluged by letters, e-mails, and calls asking the President to go/not to go to Pakistan.

What is becoming increasingly evident is that any decision to go to Pakistan will be made with a great deal of reluctance and trepidation. For all the hoarse shouting and incessant moaning from the Pakistani lobby, all it may get is a brief stopover aimed more at giving the military junta a dressing down on terrorism and proliferation.

Just how much Washington is dreading this trip from the security angle is evident from remarks by US officials expressing apprehension about the danger to the President's life if he visits Pakistan ``because the nation's security service has been heavily infiltrated by anti-American militants.''

US officials also fear that information on procedures used to protect traveling presidents could be used by terrorists with a ``global reach'' to threaten the lives of future American leaders, The Washington Times reported on Wednesday.

``The host government provides 95 per cent of the protection for a President on a visit. Only the last 5 per cent is provided by our Secret Service people. It's where their security people interact with ours that they can learn about our methods, techniques and secrets,'' an unnamed official was quoted as saying.

``This would endanger the life of President Clinton in Pakistan and on other trips. It also threatens future US presidents. These terrorists are transnationals and operate around the world,'' the official added.

Implicit in this and other statements is the acknowledgement that rogue elements that dominate the Pakistani establishment have been using terrorism as a policy instrument.

In fact, the Times reported officials as saying Pakistan's Inter Service Intelligence agency, known as the ISI, has been working for years with anti-American groups such as Harkat-ul Mujahideen, which is on the State Department list of terrorist groups.

Pakistan's ISI also has dealt for years with reputed terrorist leader Osama bin Laden, and since the rule of military dictator Zia ul-Haq in the 1980s, it increasingly has been infiltrated by Islamic zealots, the paper quoted analysts and officials saying.

One official in fact went as far as expressing fears about Islamic extremists from Afghanistan, ``who move easily across the border with Pakistan,'' attacking any airport used by the President. ``They have experience with long-range shelling,'' the official said.

Obviously, the nightmare scenario for Washington's security establishment is the use of Stinger missiles that the CIA liberally distributed in the area during the Afghan war, many of which are not accounted for.

The remarks relating to security concerns, and similar statements by senior US officials on the ``swamp of terrorism'' as the Pakistan-Afghanistan border badlands are being called, reflect the growing unease and tension within the administration on how to deal with an increasingly lawless and desperate state.

There is an emerging constituency here that believes Islamabad has to be brought to book for its patronage of terrorism without splitting hairs about whether it is in response to the situation in Kashmir. Or for that matter whether such patronage is ``official'' or is being guided by the rogue elements in Pakistan's secret service.

There is another constituency that believes that it is best not to drive Pakistan into a corner and it is imperative for Washington to engage any moderate elements in that country and isolate the extremists.

The former constituency is pushing the Clinton Administration to declare Pakistan a state sponsor of terrorism in the annual list that is announced on April 28.

In fact, US officials have indicated that this year, Washington may be inclined to remove some of the seven countries in the list (sometimes called the ``seven sisters'') like Libya following improved ties and compliance with anti-terrorist measures.

Officials have said new countries may also be added to the list and disclosed that the case against Pakistan is ``under review.'' Following the implied threat, Islamabad is now hurriedly taking measures to disarm its gun-toting extremists but there is no evidence to show that is able to cap the terrorist genie it has let loose in Kashmir.

The Washington establishment is increasingly beginning to question the Pakistani version that the violence in Kashmir is indigenous arising out of a homegrown separatist movement. Recent reports indicate that India's version that Pakistan is actively fomenting violence with armed infiltration is seen as more credible and is gaining acceptance.