The Missing Border

The presidential speech on January 17 failed to address a hot subject -- the American attack in Bajaur

By Rahimullah Yusufzai
The News, Pakistan, 29 January 2006


For 90 minutes on January 17, President General Musharraf addressed the nation on the radio and television and talked about almost every problem at present afflicting Pakistan. But one subject he chose to ignore was the US missile strike on a village in Bajaur Agency that killed 13 innocent civilians and raised questions about the vulnerability of Pakistani borders to such high-tech and high-handed incursions by the American drones, warplanes and laser-guided missiles.

The omission was glaring. But it was deliberate, though it is still unclear as to why Pakistan's uniformed president decided not to talk about an emotive incident that had occurred only five days ago and was still fresh in the memory of the people. It was being discussed in every nook and corner of Pakistan and had triggered emotional anti-US and anti-Musharraf demonstrations but the country's most powerful man was unaffected.

It seemed the tough-talking and highly articulate general had still not made up his mind how to react to the matter or he didn't want his focus on other issues to be diluted by taking up the Bajaur tragedy.

Various theories could be advanced to explain President Musharraf's decision to keep silent about the incident for the first few days and then gradually and casually mention it without focusing on it too much. One theory is that the President felt embarrassed that his American friends failed to inform him about the deadly missile strike on Damadola village in Bajaur. At great personal risk, the president has helped the US in a big way to occupy Afghanistan and to wage war against al-Qaeda by taking some controversial and unpopular decisions at home and it must have pained him that the US was still unwilling to trust him and his military commanders.

Pakistan government functionaries are insisting Islamabad wasn't informed by the US about its plans to target the three homes in Damadola that were under surveillance by the pilotless, CIA-managed Predator planes for at least four nights before the strike. In fact, Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz and some other government officials are complaining more about the US refusal to let Pakistan know about the attack beforehand than its aggression inside Pakistani territory.

The thrust of the Prime Minister's argument during his recent US visit was that there should be more cooperation between Islamabad and Washington in the so-called war on terror and America would do well to share its military plans for Pakistan with his government. The US military authorities may not want to do that in view of their diminishing trust in the Pakistani armed forces to do America's job in accordance with Washington's wishes and global political agenda.

Another theory as to the President's reluctance to talk about the Bajaur incident could be the embarrassment the US attack had caused him and his government due to their inability to defend the country's borders and protect citizens from foreign aggression. That is the primary responsibility of any government, more so if it is presided by a military man. Survivors of the US missile strike repeatedly highlighted this point in their interaction with the media and posed questions as to why their own government and armed forces were unable to come to their rescue. The fact that officials of the political administration took five long days to undertake their first visit to Damadola and the commandant of the paramilitary Bajaur Scouts, who are supposed to guard Pakistan's borders in the area, went there on the eighth day of the attack in a heavily guarded convoy of 17 vehicles, explained the confused and helpless state of mind of the government functionaries.

In fact, some of the officials told the survivors about their helplessness in the wake of the US attack while explaining their inability to help them. The message being conveyed was that such attacks could happen again if they and other tribesmen are unable to remove the impression that they were harbouring foreign militants.

Until now, the president and his supporters have been able to convince most Pakistanis that his post 9/11 policies have rescued Pakistan and enabled it to escape the unending US wrath. The majority of our people felt it was prudent not to cross America's path at a time when it was relentlessly pursuing a policy to avenge the 9/11 attacks. The president had promised the nation that his pro-US policies would bring both political and economic rewards. He had told them a grateful and helpful America would help solve the Kashmir problem and enable Pakistan to protect its nuclear programme.

Those promises remain largely unfulfilled. Though US economic and military assistance to Pakistan resumed and was useful, critics still maintain that Pakistan under a democratic dispensation would have extracted greater help from Washington. On the face of it, the US has moved closer to India and pushed Pakistan to make unilateral concessions on a host of issues including Kashmir, nuclear programme, and the war on terrorism.

The US support no doubt has helped the president personally by backing his brand of controlled democracy but tangible rewards for the country are below expectations. Being the great communicator that he is, the president could have used his speech to argue his case in a way that would have turned a bad situation in his favour. He could have scored points by reminding the nation in general and the tribal people in particular about his past warnings that Pakistan's failure to flush out the foreign militants from South Waziristan, North Waziristan, Bajaur and other tribal agencies would prompt the US to launch attacks inside Pakistani territory. At the same time, he could have sought better cooperation from the tribesmen to hunt down the militants in a bid to avoid such cross-border US attacks in future. No doubt our President doesn't want to appear looking weak and vulnerable but the fact remains that he indeed is in a difficult situation having few options in the face of the pressure from the US and its allies and the growing criticism of his policies at home.

There are other theories as well with everyone interpreting the presidential omission in his or her own way. We don't know what was in the president's mind when he opted to ignore the Bajaur incident in his speech and instead focused on the issues of dams, Balochistan and National Finance Commission. He treated it as a non-event even if the US attack and the killing of 13 innocent men, women and children had damaged Pakistan's claims to be a sovereign state and hurt our self-respect. By mentioning the Bajaur tragedy the president could have consoled the survivors and the many other Pakistanis grieving for the victims and blunted the opposition's protests.

By not mentioning Bajaur, the president gave the impression as if he too is helpless before the mighty US.