Pakistan: Uncomfortable Ally for Washington

For the United States, tangled up in the Afghanistan conflict, Pakistan has never been a convenient ally. Since 2001, relations between the two countries have known highs and lows. Never, however, has it been so clear that the interests of Washington and Islamabad are diverging completely in the war in Afghanistan. Recent incidents — most of which took place at the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan — have just proven that.

On Friday, however, it was in the Southern part of the country that a group of armed men set fire to 27 trucks that were transporting fuel and equipment intended for NATO soldiers in Afghanistan. The vehicles were parked in a lot 400 kilometers from the port of Karachi, where merchandise intended for NATO is off-loaded. They go on to cross the Khyber Pass, in the Northwestern part of the country. This is the first time that NATO trucks have been attacked in this region.

Since Thursday, the Pakistani authorities have been blocking the convoy traffic in the Khyber Pass that supplies NATO forces stationed in Afghanistan. The decision was announced in retaliation for a fourth attack within a week by coalition helicopters in Pakistani territory, in the tribal zone of North Waziristan. The attack killed three Pakistani soldiers.

The Americans still reserve the right to “hot pursuit,” that of pursuing rebels as far as Pakistan if necessary. And according to many Western intelligence services, there was an urgent need: Attacks in France, Germany, Great Britain and doubtlessly in the United States were being plotted in North Waziristan. More seriously, American radio station NPR indicated on Friday that Osama bin Laden himself was the instigator. The head of al-Qaida was going to send precise instructions to Islamist militants, asking them to orchestrate a series of attacks modeled after those in Bombay on Nov. 26, 2008. A group of fedayeen from Pakistan took the economic and financial capital of India hostage for three days, leading to nearly 200 deaths.

By blocking the supplies headed for NATO forces in Afghanistan at Torkham, at the end of the Khyber Pass, the Pakistanis know that they are strangling the coalition: Eighty percent of goods pass through Pakistan, and NATO has had quite a bit of trouble finding another route in Central Asia. Richard Holbrooke, the Obama administration’s special representative for “Af-Pak,” judged on Friday that it was “inconceivable” that Islamabad would not rapidly lift its blockade.

Since 2001, Washington has poured nearly $10 billion into Pakistan for its “war effort.” Nonmilitary aid in the amount of $7.5 billion over five years was granted a year ago. That doesn’t stop anything. The Pakistani authorities seem fully determined to affirm the country’s sovereignty, which they judge to have been flouted by drone-aided attacks, and now from helicopters, on the tribal zones. In a speech to Parliament, Pakistani Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gillani solemnly promised that sovereignty “would not be infringed upon.” But what does the civilian government of Islamabad represent today? Discredited by its poor management of the August floods — and not only that — it is under the fire of Pakistanis’ criticism.

The political chaos into which Pakistan is sinking is another source of concern for Washington. So much so that a number of Pakistani analysts, relayed by the media, do not hesitate to raise the specter of a military coup.