US Hegemony in South Asia and MENA
According to media reports US ambassador-designate to
Pakistan Richard Olson expressed that Islamabad has moved away from the old
concept of finding strategic depth in Afghanistan and stressed encouragement
for the positive development in the South Asian country’s strategic thinking.
Appearing in his confirmation hearing, Olson, who until
recently served as a senior diplomat in Kabul, cited to Capitol Hill Pakistani
actions as well as the avowed policy statements by its leaders to move away
from the old thinking.
His apprehension may be right but he must also listen to
others rather than basing his strategy on CIA-based information. Over the years
CIA had been proved wrong repeatedly, may be because its designs conflicted
with the policies of the democratically elected representatives of the largest
democracy of the world. The CIA seems to be working on global agenda to make
countries subservient to the US policies, including providing funds and arsenal
to rebel groups around the world in the name of ‘regime change’.
For the information of designate ambassador there is a
growing feeling that Pakistan has remained subservient to the US administration
and never allowed to improve relationship with USSR, China and even India. At
the best it may be said that Pakistan enjoys good relationship with China, only
because it has been helping Pakistan in overcoming its economic problems.
Pakistan was put against USSR in Afghanistan and India has been pampered and
used against Pakistan and China.
Over the years Pakistanis have realized that their role
has been reduced to ‘mercenaries’ killing Afghan and the US has been actively
trying to create Indian hegemony in the region. This impression was further
consolidated when the United States offered India ‘nuclear technology for
civilian use’ but denied the same to Pakistan. Despite fully cognizant of the
fact that Pakistan’s economic growth is constraint by energy shortage, the
country is neither allowed buying oil, gas and electricity from Iran nor given
money to construct hydel projects.
On the question of doctrine that Pakistanis over the
years have talked about strategic depth and, one of the ideas that Afghanistan
represents strategic depth against a potential conflict with India Olson said “My
sense is that the Pakistani military and Pakistani government has moved away
from that.”
The reason is obvious because President Obama visited
India and termed it ‘strategic economic partner’ but keeps on saying ‘Pakistan
should do more’ and at times voices were raised to stop assistance for Pakistan
and declare it a ‘terrorist country’. The United States has created Taliban, a
new breed of mercenaries to fight against USSR and if it can’t put the genie
back in bottle Pakistan should not be blames.
There is also a growing realization in Pakistan that if
USSR assault on Afghanistan was an attempt to get access to ‘warm waters’, the
US occupation of Afghanistan is for getting control on production and supply of
drug. Those Taliban who don’t support cultivation of poppy are termed ‘bad’ and
those who have agreed to become partner in trade ‘good’. One of the reasons for
stopping Nato supplies was aimed at stopping supply of chemicals under the
disguise of goods of strategic importance for the combat soldiers.
The operation by Pakistan army is northern areas is aimed
at weeding out infiltrators mostly coming from Afghanistan. Balochistan has
also become centre of covert operation of foreign intelligence agencies against
Iran. The much talked about Baloch uprising is to facilitate an independent
Balochistan, comprising of three slices on each from Pakistan, Iran and
Afghanistan and creating a hostile country against Iran, which has survived
more than 32 years of economic sanction and refused to bow down before the US
hegemony in the region.
