Is This Real or Mere Election Rhetoric?

The leader of the Pakistan Muslim League (Nawaz), Nawaz Sharif, reiterated in his recent interviews with CNN and CNBC what he has been saying in his public meetings during the ongoing election campaign: The only way to tackle terrorism is through dialogue and not through the use of the gun. He has thundered that this war cannot be won by military action alone. Additionally, he said that the newly elected representatives will formulate a new policy relating to America and India. He also declared that open inquiries will take place with regard to the Kargil War and the Mumbai attacks for public accountability.

On the other side, Imran Khan, leader of the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf, declared equally emphatically that he would rather die than beg America or any other country for aid. In election rallies across the Punjab, he claimed that overseas Pakistanis trusted him, had put their faith in him alone and that from them he could raise billions, freeing Pakistan from the bondage of debt and aid. He vowed that if America sent drones over Pakistan, he would order the air force to shoot them down.

In the ongoing election campaign, especially as the election date draws close, it is only to be expected that leaders of parties will attempt to highlight the issues of national importance more vociferously. To gain the support of the electorate they will be tempted to offer popular, rather than realistic, solutions to the country’s problems. Nawaz Sharif and Imran Khan are major contestants in the elections, and their pronouncements and promises are therefore important for the future of Pakistan. What they promise today in election rallies will be the yardstick by which they will be judged tomorrow. They will be asked to deliver on those promises once in power. The future government will retain credibility only if it is able to meet the expectations built up during electioneering. Surely the leaders recognize that their voters are perceptive and fully understand the issues at hand. They should therefore be responsible in their claims, even in the heat of elections. This is especially so in the case of the war on terror and future U.S.-Pakistan relations. Do not build up false hopes, as when these expectations are not met it will lead to ever greater mistrust and more recriminations. It will also encourage and reinforce the fairly widely held view that this is not Pakistan’s war, but instead is one that has been imposed on Pakistan by America.

In this election campaign, to outdo and upstage one another, first the PTI and now the PML-(N) have started speaking of an easy way out of this war. Their slogans promise an early end to the war, no matter how unrealistic, ignoring the stark reality of terror bombings across the country and drone attacks in tribal areas. Sadly, the widespread violence cannot be wished away. Thousands of innocent civilians have fallen to terrorism, soldiers are being killed every day fighting terrorists and political leaders have been assassinated. The country’s industry and economy stand ruined, its image in the world is extremely negative, foreign investment has dried up and even the election campaign is at the mercy of terrorists who care neither for democracy nor human values. This is, then, the reality that has to be faced; there is no running away from it. Leaders would do a disservice to themselves, the voters and the country if they were to ignore this challenge while promising a fundamental change in the country’s foreign policy.

In their electioneering enthusiasm and race to get ahead, both Imran Khan and Nawaz Sharif have termed the war on terror America’s war of occupation. Should they not remember the warning given by General Kayani that this is our war and has to be fought for the security and survival of Pakistan? The sentiments of the leaders about finding a solution to the ongoing conflict are praiseworthy; however, they must be subject to a realistic appraisal, which should come through rigorous analysis, with input from important state organs such as the intelligence services, the military and experts in foreign affairs.

As to the problem of drone attacks and the killing of innocent people in our tribal areas as well as in other Muslim countries such as Afghanistan, Yemen and Somalia, the matter has finally shaken the conscience of the Western world. Citizens of the U.S., U.K. and other European countries have raised their voices against this method of waging war, which kills thousands of innocents as collateral casualties. Human rights organizations are actively exposing the extent of these operations. Over 400 drone attacks, which have killed 4,700 innocent civilians, have been recorded. Most of these attacks were launched in tribal areas. A joint survey report by three reputed universities of the U.S. was made public last year. For the first time it sketched in graphic detail the barbarity of these attacks and the killings, and also questioned the usefulness of these tactics while pointing out its counterproductiveness.

Based on this report, the U.N., through its human rights wing, has warned the U.S. that America may have committed grave war crimes with its drone attacks.

In their effort to get more votes, the two leaders must not cynically play with the emotions of the people. They should resist the temptation to overpromise, for when these promises are not fulfilled, it will not be good for them, nor the country, nor indeed the democratic order that provides them with legitimacy. That democratic order requires the leaders to be truthful. We hope Nawaz Sharif and Imran Khan will consider our suggestion.