ASIAN AFFAIRS ON PAKISTAN

Ahmad Faruqui - Fellow at the American Institute of International Studies

IS THE US MEDIA BIASED AGAINST PAKISTAN?

According to the US media, the crisis between India and Pakistan is entirely Pakistan's fault. With a few notable exceptions, most writers have argued that India is the victim and Pakistan the villain in the dispute, and argue strongly that the US support India. For example, a writer in the Washington Times called upon the US to take out Pakistan's nuclear assets, to prevent a nuclear war. Another writer in the same paper wrote that Pakistan "poses a threat to peace and to American security interests." One of the Wall Street Journal's editors said, "Pakistan should not be allowed to practice nuclear blackmail on India." The Cato Institute issued a report that cautioned the US to avoid "longer-term entanglements" with Pakistan. The Center for International Policy wrote that the United States should "make sure that its relations with Pakistan do not undermine friendly U.S. relations with India, a rising power of much greater long-term importance to American interests than Pakistan." These analyses differ but little in tone or content from those coming out of the Institute of Topical Studies, which is in the van guard of the Hindu-fundamentalist movement in India.

Not too long ago, many of these pundits were arguing that the US should stay out of South Asia, since it had no vital interests in the region. They were hoping that given India's size advantage over Pakistan, the dispute would be resolved in India's favor, through bilateral negotiations. While India is eight times larger than Pakistan, both countries are pivotal states in the region. The US campaign against the Taliban regime in Afghanistan would have been impossible without Pakistani assistance. In the future, Pakistan, with a population of 140 million Muslims, can serve as a role model of a moderate Islamic state.

Independent observers would argue that the US should not support the bellicose stance that India has adopted toward Pakistan following the tragic attacks of December 13, which killed nine Indians. Mobilizing almost half a million soldiers and moving short range ballistic missiles to the border with Pakistan are highly provocative acts that are disproportionate to the Casualties inflicted in the attacks, even if Pakistan was behind the attacks. It is distressing how quickly the hawks in New Delhi have suspended all the confidence building measures (CBMs) between the two countries that had taken years to put in place. What is even more disturbing is that all the CBMs remain suspended, even after General Pervez Musharraf made his speech of January 12, essentially agreeing to all Indian demands short of handing over the 20 alleged suspects.

Explaining the Bias

There are several explanations of why the US media is biased against Pakistan. One of them ties the bias to Pakistan's consistent support of the Palestinian cause. Since the security of Israel is judged to be a cornerstone of US foreign policy, regardless of which political party governs the country, a Pakistan armed with nuclear weapons is regarded with suspicion (see note 1).

Another explanation says that Pakistan has provided financial and military assistance to extremist Muslim groups that have caused havoc and destruction in Afghanistan and Indian-held Kashmir. Thus, US analysts attribute the tens of thousands of deaths that have occurred in Kashmir in 1989 to Pakistani backed militants, not to Indian security forces. They don't analyze why a few thousand militants would require India to deploy half a million troops in a region that is the size of Belgium, nor do they critique The crimes these troops have committed against unarmed civilians.

A third explanation ties the support for India to a fascination in American culture with the philosophy and life of Mahatama Gandhi. Groups like the Beatles and musicians like Ravi Shankar introduced Indian culture to the west. The image of India as the world's largest democracy, with a fascinating history and culture, is indelibly stamped on the American psyche.

But the most significant factor appears to be the significant penetration of US academic and think tank circles by analysts of Indian nativity. India, with a population of one billion, is large enough to have professorial Chairs devoted to Indian studies in major US universities. Most occupants of these chairs are of Indian origin. The media often contacts them as sources of information not only on India, but also on South Asia as a whole. It is a comment on the naiveté of US correspondents that they don't seem to realize that such persons will invariably be biased in favor of the land of their birth.

Finally, the fact that India has had an uninterrupted tradition of democratic rule, beginning with Prime Minister Nehru, and that Pakistan has been ruled for more than half of its history by the military, ensures that US writers will naturally gravitate toward India.

What's Next?

It is disturbing that so many western analysts adopt a double standard when dealing with South Asia. There is no discussion of the subversive activities of India's Research and Analysis Wing, but extensive discussion of its Pakistani counterpart's activities. There is little recognition of India's failed intervention in the civil war in Sri Lanka that resulted in the assassination of Rajiv Gandhi, or of its violent intervention in Indian Punjab, which resulted in the assassination of Indira Gandhi. But there is continued discussion of the brutality of the Pakistani army during the civil war of 1971.

As the world's largest democracy, India should set a better example of how to treat its minority populations. In classic Pavlovian fashion, it cannot continue blaming Pakistan for all its political violence. The pundits in Washington need to shed some light on the dark side of Indian democracy. It is not just Pakistan that needs political reform (2).

Asian Affairs

Notes;

1.- About the Israeli factor in the equation, Dr Jassim Taqui wrote the follwing in an editorial:

"The way Indian has been behaving with Israel has been unprecedented in the bilateral ties. Suddenly, New Delhi has become aggressive to the extent of risking a war in the region. The Indian print and electronic media have been waging a smear campaign against Pakistan to the extent of accusing Pakistan of “ nuclear bluff”. Such Indian behaviour and violation of international norms is in fact a duplicate of the behaviour of Israel against the Palestinian National Authority. It should be noted that Israel was encouraged by such acts by the indifferent US attitude and American double standard policy. Hence, it is speculated that this Indian behaviour is also supported by behind-the-scene nod from Washington and Tel Aviv.

The Indians are using the same tactics of the Americans and the Israelis by imposing on Pakistan collective punishment and economic sanctions in the form of snapping all communication links and downsizing diplomatic mission in Islamabad and close India’s airspace to Pakistan. Evidently this would effectively hurt the people of Pakistan. It is similar also to the US 11-year-old sanctions against Baghdad, which essentially crippled the people of Iraq and caused the death of over 2 million Iraqi people in cold blood. Ironically, the Americans were well aware of the schemes of things against Pakistan well before September, 11. It is on record that on 8th, the US Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, George Tenet, told a Congressional panel that he was worried about the proliferation and development of missiles and weapons of mass destruction in South Asia and that reiterating that both India and Pakistan were willing to take risks over Kashmir. “I told you I was worried about the proliferation and development of missiles and weapons of mass destruction in South Asia.

The competition predictable extends here as well, and there is no sign that the situation has improved.” Tenet said during the course of a hearing at the Senate Intelligence Committee. And yet, the Americans have not taken immediate steps to stop the Indian war hysteria against Pakistan, which also endangers regional and global peace and security. Rather, the Americans have encouraged the Indians to induct the Israelis in the region through promoting unprecedented strategic, military and technological cooperation between New Delhi and Tel Aviv in a bid to dominate both Pakistan and China.

In fact closer strategic ties between India and Israel over the past year have markedly intensified. The most recent of several important visits to Israel this year was made by Admiral Sushil Kumar, the new Indian Navy Chief. Kumar was the official guest of Israel’s own Naval Chief, Vice Admiral Yedidya Ya’ari, who participated in the Bombay Naval Conference last March. Several other important exchange visits have taken place. Top Israeli Defence officials, led by Director General of the Ministry of Defence, retired Major-General Amos Yaron, paid an extensive visit to India in February this year. This was followed by a visit to Israel by Air Vice Marshal Vinod Patni, second-in-command of the Indian Air Force.

With the Indian Navy currently undergoing a huge modernisation programme, the warming relationship between the two nations means that Israel is hopeful of taking a substantial share of the lucrative project. As part of this programme, India has already purchased seven IAI Barak ship-borne anti-missile systems, worth US$ 270 million. The Barak-1 quick- reaction ship defence system will be mounted on the INS Viraat, India’s sole remaining naval aircraft carrier. The Viraat, formerly HMS Hermes, took active part in the 1982 Falkland campaign and has recently undergone substantial refurbishing to modernise its combat effectiveness, including the installation of an advanced

Israeli electronic warfare system. Indian authorities have indicated that the remaining six Barak systems will be mounted on three locally-built Delhi Class and three Rajput, formerly Russian Kashin Class destroyers. Israeli officials are keen to exploit the urgent need for the extensive modernisation of India’s Armed Forces. Long-range investment programmes include a new force level structure for the fleet, with a total of 125 warships and two carrier combat groups. As India’s current vessels already operate with Israeli equipment, the foundations are there for a profitable deal. The underlying strategic aim for India seems to be closer co- operation with Israeli intelligence organisations. Indian officials, led by the Home Minister and the External Affairs Minister, visited Israel in quick succession during 2000. Delegations included the heads of India’s intelligence and anti-terrorist agencies, who formalised intelligence sharing agreements with Israeli agencies. Thus the Indian Israeli connection is very evident and ominous to Pakistan.

2.- In Fair Magazine of December 2000, an article treats already the problem of the racial bias existing in the American press when reporting about terrorist activities:

Three Cases, Two Standards

On December 3, 1999, two white, U.S.-born men, Kevin Ray Patterson and Charles Dennis Kiles were arrested for allegedly plotting to blow up a TV tower, an electrical station and propane storage tanks in California, supposedly in hopes of sparking a Y2K-related militia uprising. Police say they found bomb-making equipment and illegal firearms in their homes. The names of the suspects appear in 96 newspaper articles in the Nexis computer database (as of January 6).

On December 14, an Arab man, Algerian national Ahmed Ressam, was arrested while attempting to cross into the U.S. from Canada, reportedly carrying urea fertilizer, a liquid explosive and other bomb-making ingredients; officials said he was traveling under a false passport and had ties to a violent Algerian group. Ressam's name appeared in 906 newspaper articles in Nexis.

On December 28, Jere Wayne Haney--a white, U.S.-born Texas resident who works as a mechanic for American Airlines--was charged with possessing 50 pounds of ammonium nitrate; police say they also found bomb-making instructions and white supremacist literature in his house. This suspect's name appeared in 45 Nexis newspaper articles.

Why is it that bomb suspects who are white and American generate roughly one-tenth to one-twentieth of the media interest of an Arab bomb suspect? Actually, these numbers perhaps exaggerate the attention paid to the alleged domestic terrorists; many of the stories about the Algerian suspect ran on the front page, while the California and Texas stories were often news briefs. The network evening news shows had 44 stories that mentioned Ressam, two that mentioned Patterson and Kiles (both on CBS--12/15/99, 12/20/99), and no mentions of Haney.

Is the coverage different because Arab terrorists are more dangerous than the homegrown variety? Hardly--one only has to think back to the Oklahoma City bombing to be reminded that most terrorism is domestic in origin. And it's not because the purported threat posed by Ressam was so much greater than that posed by the other suspects; scientists at Lawrence Livermore Laboratories estimated that the explosion triggered by a bomb at one of the propane storage tanks could have killed half the people in a five-mile radius (Sacramento Bee, 12/7/99). The danger if an airline employee were involved in bomb-making is obvious.

It's hard to escape the conclusion that it's Ressam's ethnicity that made him so much more newsworthy. Even the lure of a Y2K tie-in wasn't enough to get mainstream media to deviate from their stereotypes about who commits terrorism--or, at least, whose terror we should fear.

(Fair Magazine Feb 2000)