NATO Extends its Operations to Pakistan
Roedad Khan
NATO is a military alliance in search of an enemy. It had been created, in Lord Ismay’s famous
words, “to keep the Americans in, the Russians out, and the Germans down”. States are cold
monsters that mate for convenience and self-protection, not love. Confronted by a Western
Europe still in ruins and a Soviet Union triumphantly consolidating its conquests, Europeans
joined hands, in 1949, with Americans and Canadians to create a Military Alliance to stem the
further encroachment of the Soviet tide.
Under the famous Article 5, the signatories agreed, “that an armed attack against one or more of
them in Europe or North America should be considered an attack against them all”. Although
the lure of American protection was irresistible, Germans were, understandably, not very
enthusiastic about a nuclear war being fought on their own territory. A popular cartoon at the
time showed Germany as a battered little boy in a nursery where his older companions were
happily re-equipping themselves with toy guns and swords, plaintively asking, “Bitte, darf ich
diesmal nicht mitspielen”? (“Please do you mind if I don’t play this time”?)
The geographical scope of the Alliance was limited to the territory of North America, Europe
and the Atlantic approaches. So when the United States became engaged in Vietnam, it had to
soldier on alone, and did not like it. NATO has, meanwhile, built up a politico – military
infrastructure that integrates the armed forces of much of Europe and provides the United
States with a unique capacity to use the Alliance as an instrument for “out of area” policing and
surveillance. With the demise of Soviet Union, it is not clear, what other purpose NATO can still
serve.
Six years ago, the members of history’s most successful Military Alliance celebrated the Golden
Anniversary of, what is described as, a highly successful, although not a very happy marriage.
In the search for monsters to kill, NATO allies are debating whether to act beyond the confines
of Europe – potentially in North Africa, the Transcaucasus, Central Asia, the Middle East and
Persian Gulf. In each of these regions, NATO has so far been chary of direct engagement. On
none of them is there yet full agreement among all 19 Allies about common interests.
09/03/2016 - 9:50 PM
1
Against this backdrop, the sudden appearance of NATO troops on Pakistan soil raised
eyebrows. Under its Charter, NATO is not in the business of disaster relief in non-NATO
countries. It is not mandated to provide shelter, food, and medical care to survivors of natural
disasters. It is not its role to help survivors and keep them alive. To the best of my knowledge, it
played no such role in the Tsunami disaster or the Earthquake – stricken area of Turkey, a
NATO ally.
Many questions come to mind and demand answers. Pakistan is not a NATO ally. So why did
NATO decide to involve itself in relief activities in Pakistan. Surely, it did not send 1000 troops
and “just a small number of helicopters” out of lover for the people of Pakistan. So what is the
motivation behind this unprecedented goodwill gesture, people ask? Why did NATO single out
Pakistan for such assistance? With the demise of Soviet Union, NATO has become a Military
Alliance without an enemy and is desperately looking for one in order not to become irrelevant.
What is it looking for in the ruins of Azad Kashmir and the surrounding areas?
How long will NATO stay in Pakistan, people ask? The US Ambassador’s statement that,
“NATO forces would leave when they were no longer needed, and not a day before” has a ring
of dejavu about it and is quite ominous. It is a grim reminder of the havoc wrought by so-called
“invited” foreign troops in Afghanistan and Iraq. On December 28, Azimov, the Soviet
Ambassador in Islamabad, informed General Zia that his country had sent a “limited military
contingent” to Afghanistan at her “request”. The “limited contingent” stayed in Afghanistan for
9 long years and left after inflicting untold misery on the people of Afghanistan. Today both
Afghanistan and Iraq are under “friendly military occupation” and have ceased to be sovereign,
independent countries. The lesson of history is loud and clear: whatever the circumstances,
never, never, invite foreign military contingents, however limited, to enter your country. They
proliferate, tend to overstay and leave only when its suits them. Examples abound. President
Musharraf should have told NATO: Thank you. But, no thank you.
Isn’t it a great tragedy that today the only Office that matters in Pakistan is the Presidency?
Parliament, like all other political institutions, is marginalized and has no role to play in this
terrible national crisis. President Musharraf lacks political support and is all alone. No political
leader worth his salt is willing to meet him. In other countries, in times of national crises,
governments seek advice of wise and disinterested elders who, as the saying goes, had heard
09/03/2016 - 9:50 PM
2
the owl and seen the elephant. Not in today’s Pakistan. Musharraf is surrounded by sycophants
and opportunists who tell him only what he wants to hear.
All power is concentrated in the hands of one single, solitary individual in uniform. He is the
President, Supreme Commander, Chief of Army Staff, Chairman National Security Council and
Chief Executive. He alone decides questions of war and peace. He alone decides if NATO shall
stay in Pakistan or quit. He wields absolute power without responsibility and is accountable to
none. Nothing moves without his approval.
One thing is clear: General Musharraf carries too heavy a burden on his shoulders. No wonder,
when disaster struck, he was caught napping at the wheel, bogged down in Waziristan fighting
a proxy war. No body was in command when thousands – men, women and children – were
crying for help. The administration was paralyzed. In the absence of effective leadership, its
response was tardy, ineffectual and uncoordinated. The earthquake ended the leadership myth
that was already fading. General Musharraf has been weighed in the balance and found
wanting. Anger lingers over his mishandling of the earthquake disaster. All accusing fingers
point in his direction. Many view him not just a lame duck but a dead duck.
Pakistan, cursed with a history of causes worth dying for, is not blessed with men and women
willing to die for it. Hasn’t time come for us collectively to demand and try to formulate a
genuine alternative to the political wreckage around us? Will no one come out into the light of
day to express a vision for our future that isn’t based on a script written by General Musharraf?
09/03/2016 - 9:50 PM
3