Print

Mail

wiki links

Business Focus: Taliban puts Pakistan on the spot

The decision by Pakistan to help the US carry out possible military actions against neighboring Afghanistan was a lot more difficult than it may have appeared to the rest of the world.

For Pakistan to have refused America would have been an international disaster for that country. All civilized countries are behind America, at least for now, in its quest for retribution against the World Trade Center and Pentagon terrorists and their supporters.

Saying yes to America means saying no to its volatile and dangerous neighbor, which harbors Osama bin Laden, a prime suspect in last week's terrorist attacks.

What made Pakistan's choice more difficult was that the US hasn't yet made a full case against Afghanistan, though evidence is mounting.

As the case proved more and more substantial, Pakistan had to choose between moral rectitude and local political expediency.

Now, I wonder if it is a coincidence that India had stepped up to the American plate before Pakistan made its decision to side with America. India and Pakistan, of course, are usually rivals if not enemies. On Friday, India announced that it "could" give the US support if military action against Afghanistan is needed.

India saying it "could" give help is not the same thing as it saying it "would" give help -- the true meaning is probably something like: "We can't rule out your using our bases to strike Afghanistan but we will have our terms." In any event, it is friendlier than if India refused outright. The subtlety is that by saying it could cooperate, India put Pakistan right on the spot. India was in a position to possibly earn the gratitude of America and its allies whereas Pakistan might have earned their scorn.

It is ironic that India, formally a pillar of the so-called "non-aligned" movement, would take sides with America against Afghanistan, which is the ultimate non-aligned country.

And guess what other country is publicly supporting America in its declared intention to eradicate terrorism? The answer is Syria, which has promised President George W.

Bush that it will support the US building an international coalition to respond to Tuesday's attacks.

Now isn't that a switch, Syria working against terrorism? What a difference between father, meaning the late Syrian President Hafez al-Assad, and his son, the current Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. I should add that al-Assad the father, did send Syrian troops for the Desert Storm war on Iraq.

And there is a lesson here.

Consider India and Syria. For decades, the former was aloof to America and, until recently, the latter was a sworn enemy of America. Now, by virtue of a tragedy, they are both flirting with the US.

So something good and completely unexpected may come out of this terrible tragedy. We should capitalize on it and build better relations with India, Syria and any other country that gives us a hand.

And Pakistan? Well, it seems it thought it better to get on board before the train leaves the station.
This story has been viewed 1900 times.