DATE=2/1/2000
TYPE=U-S OPINION ROUNDUP
TITLE=PAKISTAN'S RESPONSE TO TERRORISTS
NUMBER=6-11660
BYLINE=ANDREW GUTHRIE
DATELINE=WASHINGTON
EDITOR=ASSIGNMENTS
TELEPHONE=619-3335
CONTENT=
INTRO: The U-S press is becoming more hostile to
Pakistan, long a military ally of this country, over
Pakistan's new attitude toward terrorists.
The most recent incident to aggravate American opinion
was the hijacking of an Indian Airlines jet to
Afganistan late in December - an act of air piracy
that went off apparently unhindered by Pakistan.
We get a sampling of comment on this issue now from
__________ in today's Editorial Digest.
TEXT: President Clinton is preparing for a trip to
the sub-continent next month, but it appears very
likely now that he will skip a visit to Pakistan. The
stop was previously on the preliminary itinerary.
Since a military coup, led by General Pervez
Musharraf, that deposed the government of Prime
Minister Nawaz Sharif three months ago, the Pakistan
visit had been somewhat in doubt. But U-S officials
kept saying no final decision had been made.
Then Pakistan appeared to allow the guerrillas who
carried out the skyjacking to enter its territory from
Afghanistan. To make matters worse, the militant
Kashmiri separatists, whom India released from jail as
a condition of ending the hijacking, have been allowed
to tour Pakistan, stirring up anti-Indian sentiment
over the Kashmir issue. All of this, plus some other
concerns about the harboring of terrorists, and
disillusionment about some of General Musharraf's
reforms, has caused most observers to feel Mr. Clinton
will bypass Islamabad on his forthcoming trip.
Our sampling begins in Baltimore, Maryland, where The
Sun is calling for more U-S pressure on the General's
regime.
VOICE: Washington should increase the pressure
on the new military regime of Pakistan to
suppress terrorists operating from its land.
Pakistan is entitled to dispute India's
possession of part of Kashmir. But Pakistan is
not entitled to give sanctuary to an
organization that explodes bombs in India and
hijacked an Indian airliner. ... Washington has
two levers. One is the visit or non-visit of
President Clinton, who has been planning to go
to India, Pakistan and Bangladesh in March.
Throughout the Cold War, Washington supported
Pakistan, while India was cozy with Moscow. The
rationale for that is over. ... The other lever
would be to list Pakistan with countries
sponsoring terrorism, effectively vetoing loans
from the World Bank and International Monetary
Fund. If the evidence is there, Washington
should not shirk from applying to this nuclear
country the standards imposed on others.
TEXT: The Chicago Tribune writes along similar lines:
VOICE: U-S intelligence agencies have concluded
that an Islamic terrorist group with ties to the
Pakistani government was responsible for the
hijacking of an Indian Airlines jet last month.
That leaves the Clinton administration facing
decisions whose consequences could be
immeasurably grave. It has to find a way to
move Pakistan toward more responsible behavior.
Anything else exposes all of South Asia to the
risk of all-out war that could end in a nuclear
holocaust. // OPT // The group in question,
known as Harkat ul-Mujahadeen, operates in the
disputed Indian province of [Jammu and] Kashmir
and has been blamed ... [for] various acts of
terrorism, including the kidnapping of Western
visitors. Like other insurgent groups opposed
to Indian rule of the mostly Muslim province, it
apparently gets financial and other help from
Islamabad, which would like Kashmir's fate to be
determined by a local plebiscite -- an idea
rejected for half a century by India. ... //
END OPT // New Delhi ... thinks the U-S should
place Pakistan on its list of nations that
support terrorism, thus cutting off all loans
from the World Bank and the International
Monetary Fund. ... Other critics are calling for
President Clinton to bypass Islamabad when he
visits India and Bangladesh in March -- to
protest both its terrorist connections and
refusal to accept a schedule to return his
country to democracy. ... A presidential snub
would be a more appropriate gesture, making
clear our belief that Pakistan must sever its
ties to violent groups that are making war on
India.
TEXT: In Wisconsin's largest city, the Milwaukee
Journal is also upset at Pakistan's recent actions, or
lack thereof, where terrorists are concerned.
VOICE: Not surprisingly, U-S intelligence
agencies have collected evidence that, despite
its bland assurances to the contrary, the
government of Pakistan is sheltering terrorists
responsible for the recent hijacking of an
Indian Airlines jet. The Clinton administration
appears to be acting swiftly and sensibly in
response to this evidence. ... Pakistan's
willingness to shelter [Harkat terrorist group
leader Maulana Fazl-ur Rehman] Khalil -- who
owes his freedom to air piracy and murder -- and
its unwillingness to take even token steps to
suppress terrorism strongly suggest that U-S
intelligence agencies have the goods on [have
evidence against] Pakistan.
TEXT: To the east, in the state of Ohio, The
[Cleveland] Plain Dealer offers a similar opinion.
VOICE: Had that assault [General Musharraf's
coup] on democracy been the only consideration,
it would have been difficult enough to make a
case for a presidential visit. But if the
military junta was involved even indirectly in
aerial piracy, it surely would be unthinkable
for [Mr.] Clinton to bestow legitimacy on such
infamous conduct. // OPT // ... Adding Pakistan
to a list that includes Iran, Iraq and Syria
would cut off the poverty-stricken country from
sources of international aid. Some
administration officials fear the consequences
for Pakistan's economy and its stability. Those
are legitimate concerns. It is also
understandable that the administration seeks to
be even-handed in its policies toward long-
standing disputes between Pakistan and
neighboring India, especially since both
countries possess nuclear weapons. But if [Mr.]
Clinton is to justify a visit, the White House
badly needs a gesture from Pakistan. //END
OPT //
TEXT: Lastly, to the Pacific state of Hawaii, where
the Honolulu Star-Bulletin feels, in summary, that
"Washington can't ignore Pakistan's ties to terrorist
groups." The paper also laments the rift in relations
between Washington and a former Cold War ally.
VOICE: The United States used to give Pakistan
hundreds of millions of dollars a year in aid.
But aid was cut back sharply in 1990 because of
concern over a Pakistani nuclear weapons
program. Currently Pakistan receives only six-
million dollars-a-year, for counter-narcotics
support and health programs for women and
children. Any hope for a resumption of large-
scale U-S aid would be dashed if Pakistan's
military rulers, led by General Pervez
Musharraf, refused to heed a warning that their
government could be branded a state sponsor of
terrorism. The Clinton administration warned
that could be the result if the Pakistani army
continued to support terrorists blamed for the
hijacking of an Indian Airlines jetliner to
Afghanistan in late December. Pakistan has
denied involvement in the hijacking. ..
Washington has not issued a similar warning to
India. U-S relations with India have improved,
while relations with Pakistan have worsened. ...
How much leverage the United States has in this
situation isn't clear. However, the government
is already in financial straits and may be
susceptible to pressure. In any case,
Washington can't ignore Pakistan's link with
terrorism.
TEXT: On that note, we conclude this sampling of
comments on U-S relations with Pakistan, in the wake
of several terrorist events and a military takeover in
Islamabad, little more than a month before President
Clinton embarks on a trip to South Asia.
NEB/ANG/WTW
01-Feb-2000 13:35 PM EDT (01-Feb-2000 1835 UTC)
NNNN
Source: Voice of America
.
|
NEWSLETTER
|
|
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list
|
|
|
