p(firstLetter). Prime Minister Imran Khan鈥檚 that Pakistan does not have use for militant Jihadi groups anymore comes at a time when Pakistan faces blacklisting by the international terrorist-financing watchdog, the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) and must be taken with a pinch of salt.
If his comments in a New York Times have the blessing of Pakistan鈥檚 all-powerful military, they cannot be trusted any more than the previously broken promises on the subject. If, however, Khan said what he said without clearing it with army chief General Qamar Bajwa first, Pakistan鈥檚 politics is about to take another interesting turn.
Just three years ago, the Pakistan army had taken offence over former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif telling them to act against militants and the civilians鈥� views to a Pakistani newspaper. The so-called instigated Sharif鈥檚 battle with the military that led to his eventual removal from office.
The army was not only angry over Sharif鈥檚 suggestion that Pakistan risked global isolation over its support for Jihadi terrorists, it also put pressure on the newspaper that reported Sharif鈥檚 views and finally forced the journalist who reported it to stop writing his weekly column.
What Sharif鈥檚 aides had told Dawn, the Pakistani newspaper associated with the country鈥檚 founder Muhammad Ali Jinnah, is almost identical to what Khan has now said to the New York Times. If the army had bristled at the suggestion under Sharif that across-the-board action against militants was necessary, it would balk at it now as well.
There is little change in Pakistan鈥檚 attitude towards militancy, particularly the one directed against Afghanistan and India. Pakistan failed to initiate any action against Jaish-e-Muhammad or its leader, Masood Azhar, after the Pulwama terrorist attack across the Line of Control in Jammu and Kashmir in February this year.
Islamabad鈥檚 close ties with Beijing were invoked to ensure that Azhar鈥檚 designation as a terrorist by the United Nations was by China at Pakistan鈥檚 behest. Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi publicly that Azhar was ill and could not be arrested, and that there was no 鈥渟olid鈥� evidence against him anyway. Such moves hardly reflect a change in Pakistan鈥檚 30-year policy of supporting Jihadis for influence in the region.
Some might argue that the army鈥檚 anger over 鈥楧awn Leaks鈥� was less about the proposed policy but more about embarrassment caused by acknowledging Pakistan鈥檚 past support of terrorism in the media. If that was the case, Khan鈥檚 latest comments to an international media outlet represent a bigger mea culpa than what Dawn had published in 2016.
Just as Sharif鈥檚 government felt then, Khan鈥檚 government fears terrorism-related international injunctions. Pakistan鈥檚 economy is already on the brink, with a crashing stock market, stagnant exports, low revenue collection, and mounting debts. Further FATF sanctions would only make Khan鈥檚 only economic option 鈥� more borrowing and financial bailouts by other countries and IMF 鈥� more difficult.
鈥淲e can鈥檛 afford to be blacklisted,鈥欌� he told the New York Times before declaring that 鈥淲e have decided, for the future of our country 鈥� forget the outside pressure 鈥� we will not allow armed militias to operate anymore.鈥欌� Khan also acknowledged that 鈥淭he Pakistan Army created them,鈥欌� while talking about the militants 鈥搒omething the army does not like being said.
But the army might forgive the slight if the purpose of Khan鈥檚 remarks is to set the stage for a new global public relations offensive aimed at convincing a sceptical world that this time, finally, Pakistan is about to change course. The FATF鈥檚 demands regarding compliance with the global terrorist-financing regime are a real and present danger and the army will swallow its pride to see that danger pass. It would not be the first time Pakistan鈥檚 establishment has tried to fend off international pressure over its Jihadist policies with promises of action.
Gullible western reporters and diplomats, convinced that optimism is a form of strategy, have applauded Pakistan鈥檚 鈥榠nitiatives鈥� to shut down militant training camps, detaining extremist leaders, and reforming madrasas on many occasions, especially since 2001. Not everyone checks the historical record and there are always new interlocutors who are unfamiliar with the fate of earlier promises of change and reform.
Pakistan鈥檚 support for militancy is motivated by the desire to provide a force multiplier for a relatively poor country trying to act as a major regional power without resources comparable to its perceived rival. Pakistan is an ideological state and is unlikely to change without questioning the state ideology.
But for some in the West, the notion that 鈥渟urely they must have understood by now that they need to change鈥� often overrides the lessons of history. General Pervez Musharraf was by the New York Times鈥� Celia Dugger because he attended a Roman Catholic School and had dogs as pets. Now the same paper鈥檚 Jeffrey Gettleman seems by Imran Khan, 鈥渁 cricket star and A-list celebrity鈥�.
Take Khan鈥檚 promise in his interview that his 鈥渘ew crackdown [on militants] would go far deeper than previous ones criticized as cosmetic. The government, for instance, plans to send 200,000 teachers to religious schools across the country to teach secular subjects like English and math鈥� as part of its effort to 鈥渄eradicalize students.鈥�
The promoters of Khan as potential reformer ignore the fact that similar plans have been amid much fanfare in Pakistan since 2002, only to after sinking millions of dollars in foreign aid. Moreover, Pakistan鈥檚 militants are not all produced in religious schools and the curriculum of is, in some cases, as radical and inculcates as much hate as what Mullahs might teach their students in a madrasa.
As for the study of English and Math as tools of deradicalisation, Khan, and those willing to believe his latest promises, forget that many prominent Jihadi terrorist leaders were trained as engineers or doctors. If learning English and Math did not deter Osama bin Laden from becoming a terrorist, how will it change things for children brought up on a national ideology that fosters militancy?