 | « Back to article | Print this article |
In a major policy speech at the Council on Foreign Relations in Washington, Levin, who is one of the most cerebral foreign policy experts, took a hefty swipe at Pakistan's Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani Khar. During her recent visit to New York for the United Nations General Assembly, Khar had
reacted angrily to retired US Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen's statements that the Haqqani network was "the veritable arm of the ISI." She had warned that such public recriminations could result in the US losing a strategic ally.
Levin said that even if the Hamid Karzai government in Afghanistan "has the will to improve governance, it cannot succeed without security." "The greatest threat to security in Afghanistan is that posed by the safe havens that harbour insurgents across the border in Pakistan. The Haqqani network in North Waziristan in particular has used its sanctuary in Pakistan to launch deadly attacks on Afghan, US and other coalition forces in Afghanistan," including the attacks "on the hotel Inter-Continental in Kabul in June that killed 21 people, the massive truck bomb in Wardak province that injured several dozen US soldiers, and the attack last month on the US embassy in Kabul."
The senator argued that the threat emanating from these safe havens is not new. "We have known about it for years, and we've repeatedly pressed the Pakistanis to act. I have seen personally how the Pakistan government has stalled this issue. I have repeatedly urged Pakistan President Asif Ali Zardari, Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani and Pakistan Army chief General Kayani to act to eliminate these terrorist sanctuaries," he claimed.
Recalling his recent trip to Islamabad, the senior lawmaker said, "When I raised the issue of safe havens in Pakistan and when we asked why the Pakistani military had not gone into North Waziristan to eliminate these safe havens, we heard the same excuses that we've heard before, about how the Pakistani army was already over-committed elsewhere."
"I then pressed Prime Minister Gillani to explain why, if Pakistan, for whatever reason, can't or won't clear out these save havens, why is it that senior Pakistan officials have not at least publicly condemned the deadly cross-border attacks by the Haqqanis. Gillani initially said, in response to that question, that his government had publicly condemned these attacks, but he backed down when I asked him to provide examples. He then said 'they're lower-level officials who made those statements'," Levin recalled.
Now, what has been apparent for years is that the ISI maintains ties with the Haqqani network and provides support to this group, he said.
US Ambassador to Pakistan Cameron Munter recently said, in connection with the attack on the US embassy in Kabul, that there was evidence linking the Haqqani network to the Pakistani government. And of course, Admiral Mullen's testimony last month was a sharp public declaration by our top military officer, who is known as a friend of Pakistan, he added.
Levin asserted, "We owe it to our military, the men and women who put on the uniform of the US, that when we send them into harm's way that we challenge Pakistan over its support for the extremist groups."
"It is simply unacceptable for the US to spend its blood and treasure so that Afghanistan does not once again become a breeding ground for militant extremists, while Pakistan at the same time protects terrorists. Pakistan cannot evade its responsibility from its role in allowing and supporting these attacks. At the least, Pakistan needs to condemn the attacks of the Haqqanis in Afghanistan, and Pakistani officials need to end their denials," he said.
"If Pakistan will not take on the threat posed by the Haqqanis and other extremist groups then we should be prepared to take steps to defend our troops. It is consistent with established principles of international law for the US to defend itself and Afghanistan against cross-border attacks by insurgents based in Pakistan."
According to Levin, the US has the right not only to target forces and artillery attacking Afghanistan, but to also target people controlling those forces as well. He said as "Defence Secretary (Leon) Panetta has said, the message that the Pakistanis need to know is that the US is going to do everything that we can to defend our forces."
Levin said, "We should inform Pakistan that it should not expect to normalise its relationship with the US so long as it provides safe haven for violent extremist groups or uses terrorists as proxies against other countries. We may not be able to persuade Pakistan that its activities are counterproductive for its own security and stability in the region, but we must let them know clearly that this is a show-stopper to a normal relationship with the United States."
He lauded US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's reading of the the riot act to the Pakistani leadership during her visit to Islamabad last week.
Levin, who is privy to classified intelligence information, also slammed the Pakistanis saying that it is clearly involved in attempting to exercise control over the leadership in Kabul after the exit of American and North Atlantic Treaty Organisation troops. "There's also evidence that the Pakistanis have interfered with attempts to achieve political reconciliation in Afghanistan, obstructing peace talks unless they can exercise control over the Taliban. We should be clear with the Pakistanis that obstruction of reconciliation efforts in Afghanistan is also an impediment to improved relations with us."
The senator also slammed the US State Department for not designating the Haqqani network as a foreign terrorist organisation. "It's long past due for the United States to call the Haqqani network for what it is and add this extremist group to the State Department's foreign terrorist organisation list. The Haqqanis should be listed alongside the Pakistan Taliban, Lashkar- e-Tayiba, and the Al Qaeda as foreign terrorist organisations. Keeping the Haqqanis off that list has neither encouraged the outfit to join a reconciliation process, nor has it prevented the ISI from continuing its support for the Haqqanis."
Levin acknowledged that nobody wants the US-Pakistan relationship to return to the early 1990s, when the US disengaged from Pakistan. "Nowhere are the effects of that disengagement felt more strongly than in our bilateral military-to-military relations. A whole generation of mid-level Pakistani officers had no contact with their US counterparts. The absence of these connections contributed to anti- Americanism among those now senior Pakistani officers," he said.
He argued that "Admiral Mullen was right to say that a flawed relationship with Pakistan is better than none at all." But at the same time he said, "In continuing to find ways to improve a 'flawed relationship' we must also speak clearly." Khar's threat that "if the US persists in allegations about the ISI-Haqqani connection, it 'will lose an ally,' should be met with a response that "if the only option that Pakistan presents us is a choice between losing an ally and continuing to lose our troops, then we will choose the former," he asserted.
Levin said what the Pakistanis were doing by sponsoring the Haqqani network was essentially trying to buy time. "They've tried to buy peace. They've tried to buy them off by essentially allowing them to operate from its soil if they focussed on troops across the border. Will that end up biting them? It may or may not. But it's biting us. And I think what will bite them would be the loss of a stronger relationship with the United States," he said.
When asked what leverage the US has to apply against Pakistan to persuade Islamabad to be in sync with the US in the war on terror, Levin said, "If they see the relationship between us and them as a plus, either economically or militarily, that relationship cannot be normal as long as their land is used as a base of attack. That's number one."
"Number two, obviously there's a significant amount of economic and military support that we provide which is in jeopardy because of this threat from their territory against our troops. You can't have a relationship where we're supporting a country that is actively, as well as passively -- both -- helping to kill our troops," he conlcuded.