Printline Pakistan

In an editorial on December 5, Dawn made a sensible assessment of Condoleezza Rice’s tough talking with the civilian and military leadership of Pakistan.

Response to Mumbai

In an editorial on December 5, Dawn made a sensible assessment of Condoleezza Rice’s tough talking with the civilian and military leadership of Pakistan. “Rice’s unscheduled dash to the subcontinent appears to have quelled talk of a conflict, at least for now. There is clearly deep anger in India which may shatter the carefully crafted détente that Ms Rice has been able to achieve. Pakistan must carefully map out its options and possible moves. Ms Rice would not have left Islamabad in the mood she did, had she not gotten assurance that Pakistan will act against any individuals or groups that India may show are linked to the Mumbai attacks. The civilian and military leadership must speak with one voice against the scourge of terrorism. Any signs of a rift in that relationship will further complicate matters and hamper Pakistan’s efforts to credibly respond to India.”

The Daily Times, on December 5, argued why Pakistan needs to show flexibility rather than bravado: “Because Pakistan runs the risk of becoming isolated internationally to such an extent that ‘friends’ who may want to come to its help may be deterred by their own isolation. This is what happened in 2001. General Pervez Musharraf is today a non-person but the fact is that our army did step back after Pakistan had reached its maximum point of isolation in its policy of supporting the Taliban government in Kabul. The 9/11 holocaust caused the change and the change was good for Pakistan; but after the 9/11 of Mumbai the nightmare of isolation is once again staring Pakistan in the face”. The editorial ended with some dark humour: “Those who think simply of war and become smug should know that Pakistan can be harmed without being subjected to war.”

According to The News, on December 5, both India and Pakistan “are attempting to win the US over to their side. The need to persuade US officials of their righteousness seems to be the key factor in the raising of the pitch.” It assessed that the only people who benefit from it will be those who oppose regional harmony. “This includes terrorists. They have already been exploiting the situation that has been created by India’s attacks.”

The News, on December 2, rejoiced when the White House reposed confidence in Pakistan’s anti-terrorism resolve and its promise to cooperate with India in investigating the Mumbai attacks. Press Secretary Dana Perino was quoted as saying: “I’ve heard nothing that says that the Pakistani government was involved. Asked whether Washington trusted Islamabad to help investigate the attacks, Perino replied: ‘We have no reason not to right now. Everything that they have said in their public statements and in their private statements to us has been encouraging.’” In a news item on December 5, The News reported a meeting between Pakistan’s foreign minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi and former ISI chief Hameed Gul over the latter’s worry that Washington has put his name on top of a list of international terrorists. “Sources said the minister assured him that the government would seriously look into the issue of Washington’s move to include the names of ex-ISI officials in the list of international terrorists through the UN’s Security Council…Gul said he told the minister that it is the prime responsibility of the government to defend its individuals as well as the institutions from those foreign powers, which are hell-bent to destroy the country’s institutions like the ISI and Pakistan Army to attain the ultimate objective of de-nuclearising this only Muslim nuclear state in the world.”