‘End of the road for Pak backing of anti-India terrorists’

The attempted car bomb attack earlier this week in New York by a Pakistani-American will force Pakistan, under heightened US pressure, to crack down on all terrorist groups, including those that target India, says Lisa Curtis, a South Asia expert at the Heritage Foundation who served in former president George W Bush’s administration. In an interview with Venkatesan Vembu, Curtis said the terror groups that targeted India earlier now have a pan-Islamist agenda, and Pakistan can no longer continue its policy of tolerating terrorist groups. Excerpts:

Another terrorist trail in the US with roots in Pakistan. Should the US review the role of Pakistani agencies, be they state or non-state actors, in exporting terror?
In the past, Pakistan has been reluctant to pursue militants with a connection to attacks on India. But if militants that are linked to some of these India-focussed groups, like the Lashkar-e-Toiba (LeT) or the Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM) turn out to be involved in the latest case (attempted car bombing in New York), Pakistan’s response will serve as a litmus test for the future of US engagement with Pakistan.

Pakistani security strategists have long believed in a policy of tolerating some terrorists while fighting others. But the increasing links among militant groups have made this policy untenable. It’s possible that Faisal Shahzad (who was arrested for the New York incident) came into contact with some terrorists who have previous connections with Pakistan’s intelligence services. It will bring to a head the contradictions in Pakistan’s policies on terrorism; we’ll see some major developments in Pakistan in the coming weeks.

How is the Obama administration’s approach to dealing with Pakistan as a source of terror different from that of the Bush administration?
There aren’t many differences. Unfortunately, some of the contradictions in Pakistan’s policy towards terrorists befuddle US policymakers. Pakistan is fighting militants in the tribal areas, but Pakistani military leaders tolerate the existence of terrorist groups, particularly those that attack India. But these groups are increasingly focussing on the US and the West. It’s difficult for any US administration to form an effective policy toward Pakistan because, on the one hand, they are getting some cooperation, but on the other hand, they are not getting the full cooperation they
desire.

The Faisal Shahzad case will bring these issues to a head. It will force Pakistan to adopt firmer anti-terrorism policies and to begin to move away from its ambiguous policy toward terrorist groups.

What lessons does the Times Square incident hold for Indian homeland security officials?
In India’s case, there is recognition of the need to fight the terrorism problem on several different levels: one, in terms of trying to prevail upon Pakistan to crack down on the groups that attack India, and, second, improving its own homeland security and ensuring that there is no cooperation from Indian citizens for these terrorist groups. Now, because of this Times Square incident, the US now faces a similar challenge; the US will probably have a lot to learn from India, and vice versa.

The perception in India is that the US rewards bad behaviour by Pakistan, which still backs terrorist groups targeting India.
I can see why India finds it frustrating. With US policy, there’s a tendency to shy away from any tough talk against Pakistan for its continued support to some extremists; this is a problem. Some US officials argue that it’s better to deal with these challenges privately than embarrassing Pakistan publicly. The Obama administration is attempting to handle these situations in a way that Pakistan can take the necessary steps rather than putting the officials in the spot. Whether or not this is effective, we are waiting to see.

The US associates the LeT with the India-Pakistani dispute and sees it as less inimical to the US. Does that reflect a disquieting calculation in US thinking?
It’s a problem in the US policymaking establishment. There are differences of opinion on what kind of direct threat the LeT represents to US interests. The arguments of officials who say it poses a direct threat to US interests are gaining momentum. But the US is behind the curve on this. There has been a tendency to buy into the Pakistani thinking that it can control these groups when it really can’t. US policy has not had the foresight to recognise that the groups that may have targeted India in the 1990s are now focussing on the West, and share a pan-Islamist extremist agenda with Al Qaeda and the Taliban, and it’s not possible for Pakistan to continue to pursue a policy of targeting some terrorists and tolerating others. Its policy on relying on religious militants to support its strategic objectives is not sustainable.

How can Pakistan demonstrate it is serious about cracking down on all terrorist groups?
We look for the prosecution of Zakiur Rehman Lakhvi, who masterminded the Mumbai massacre, and others involved. We’d expect to see the arrest of Hafiz Muhammad Sayeed, and restrictions being put on his ability to make speeches. We’d see terrorists such as Mazhoor Azad and Ilyas Kashmiri arrested... Terrorism masterminds in Pakistan have been able to escape arrest; if we see some of these leaders being dealt with, that would be a good sign that things are beginning to change. Another issue is the crackdown on the Haqqani network in North Waziristan, which is important to the US efforts to stabilise Afghanistan.

How realistic is the likelihood of action on these fronts?
We seem to be getting Pakistani cooperation in the Faisal Shahzad case; we’ll have to see how deep his links with Pakistani extremist groups are. If they turn out to be deep, we expect Pakistan will be forced to deal with these organisations. But we’ve seen in the past that Pakistan can be quite recalcitrant about cracking down on terrorist groups.