The daylight and dark

I.M. Mohsin
US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was in Pakistan for three days. Despite the fumbles of our media anchors, she got a telling account of our predicament typified by the atrocious bomb blast in Peshawar last Wednesday which killed a hundred women and children, besides others. The dominant perception conveyed, generally, by students particularly, was one of "trust deficit" vis-à-vis US. One young journalist even told her, "you had one 9/11, we are having daily 9/11s in Pakistan." She also described it as 'your war' which Pakistan was made to fight, the past notwithstanding.
Hillary, being more of a politician, responded cleverly to such frank dicta by the harassed Pakistanis. Conceding that US had made mistakes in the past she advised moving on to face up to the current challenges. Putting exclusive emphasis on the elimination of Al-Qaeda leadership, which the Washington right-wing analysts have been projecting as living in posh hotels in Quetta, she appeared to reflect the new policy.
Her expression of disbelief about the Pakistani establishment having no clue about the fugitive leaders reflected the failure of intelligence. It also underscored the lack of collaboration and trust between the 'partners' to the on-going war wherein poor Pakistanis are pocketing huge costs. In addition, they are suffering constant threats of diverse nature.
Pakistani interlocutors, generally, picked holes in the US approach; one of them even suggested that President Barack Obama was following George W Bush's agenda. To that she said that this was not so and there was a difference like there is one between "...dark and daylight." I have used her expression as the subject of this piece. Despite all the glitches, Hillary offered a robust relationship in future while urging Pakistan to do more. She also defended US bias for India. However, while urging the exploitation of the weapon of trade which had great potential due to Pakistan's strategic location, she asked the hosts to defeat terrorism.
George W Bush visited India on invitation last week. He claimed to have supported Musharraf as a quid pro quo for the latter joining of the War on Terror as an ally. Advocating all-out assistance to the democratic government in Pakistan, he disclosed that he had told Musharraf that the US stood for democracy. This conundrum underlines that US can adapt to any dictator, if American interests are perceived as being served, while singing eulogies for democracy. However, Hillary did say that in future the US would not support any dictator who seized power in Pakistan. The taste of pudding would lie in eating like always. If a disaster of this type strikes again, Pakistanis could invoke such homilies to muster sponsorship.