Obama's disappointing start

No doubt, in a system like the US it is idle to expect that things would change overnight with the change of administration. Besides, the US is a superpower with long-term strategic goals and policies designed to promote them are devised with both Congress and administration on board. Unless there is a change in the perception of strategic interests, a new face in the White House replacing the one from another party that had been occupying it earlier would make only a cosmetic difference. But supposing the incoming president, who enjoys the backing of Congress like Mr Obama, would like to shift the strategic focus, there would inevitably be a time lag before the situation on ground could be assessed from the new perspective, the previous policies reviewed and the fresh ideas put into effect. His supporters would, therefore, counsel restraint against jumping to the conclusion. Nevertheless, the world made to weather an eight-year-long stormy spell under the presidency of Mr Bush would be eager to get some signs of relief in line with the all-round expectations raised by the humane and understanding view of Mr Obama's psyche, which has emerged from his campaign speeches. The decision to shut down the Guantanamo torture cell, and possibly other secret prisons in Europe and elsewhere, should not be seen as a shift in policy. The Bush administration had been under mounting pressure from friends and foes and internal forces for quite some time to get rid of these ugly unconstitutional spots that had rubbished Washington's claim of being a symbol of democratic ideals. The vengeful exploits of American soldiers, under authorisation of the concerned official quarters, left permanent scars on the bodies as well as minds of the detainees, a large number of them had, incidentally, never been charged with any crime. Some had died from unbearable pain; some had committed suicide; some were maimed for life; others freed when nothing could be found against them, only to spearhead what the US called the War On Terror and what they maintained 'freedom struggle against occupation forces'. Closing down this defamed site of grave human rights violations would go at least some way in retrieving the sullied image of the United States. However, on the question whether terrorism is the biggest challenge to the country's security and, indeed, the future of its prestige and pre-eminence in global politics both newly installed President Barack H Obama of the Democrat party and his predecessor, Republican George W Bush, see eye to eye with each other. It is only in the mode of operation to meet that threat that one might see a difference of nuance. And it is in the fight against terrorism that Pakistan figures most prominently in the US reckoning and had pinned hopes that with the induction of the Obama administration the emphasis would be placed more on the economic and social development of the region than the military might. For all the pre-election indications from Mr Obama that he would not hesitate to bomb Pakistan's tribal region if a high-value target was spotted there, there was disappointment in Islamabad and other parts of the country at the twin drone attacks in North and South Waziristan on January 23, barely three days after he had assumed power. It was the same old story: 21 killed, mostly local residents unconcerned with Al-Qaeda or Taliban resistance; dozens injured; and anger, resentment, protests and despair. Vice President Joe Biden went on record declaring that the raids were in line with his president's policies, dampening spirits and hopes from the new administration to chalk a new course of action. But, has not Mr Obama conditioned these raids on the inability or unwillingness of the Pakistan government to take action against such targets? And has Pakistan shown its inability to take them out or expressed its unwillingness to do so, if credible intelligence were provided? It is a pity that the attacks occurred despite Pakistan's emphatic position, repeatedly outlined, that they were proving counterproductive to the War On Terror. It had hoped that Mr Obama would appreciate its point that they were provoking a severe backlash from the population and making anti-US converts, who were swelling the ranks of militants. The stoppage of drone attacks and the exchange of intelligence about the movement of militants have been among the longstanding demands of the government here. Their disregard by Washington hurts not only the sensitivities of the people of Pakistan on the issue of territorial sovereignty but also the Americans' own interests. Several American and Western analysts have endorsed the Pakistanis' point of view that the violations of sovereignty and the civilian deaths were engendering terrorism and adverse reactions. But the occurrence of these aerial forays at a time when most observers have concluded that Islamabad is unreservedly trying to eliminate militancy from the region, rightly regarding it as a veritable scourge for the country as a whole, it is quite surprising. One was looking forward to the passing on of intelligence by the US to the relevant Pakistani agency to see whether it acted on the tip. E-mail: mqkay@yahoo.co.uk