Tom Donilon’s comments yesterday notwithstanding, Pakistan has a lot of explaining to do. It sheltered Osama bin Laden for years in that nation’s equivalent of West Point, and its Inter-Services Intelligence agency has, apparently, facilitated Al Qaeda and Taliban terrorism for years.

Ahmad Majidyar, my colleague at the American Enterprise Institute, points out that senior Pakistani officials openly support, protect, and even campaign with members of groups which the United States already defines as terrorist entities.

It is well past time for the White House and State Department to explain why Pakistan is not on the State Sponsor of Terrorism list. Objectively, Pakistan belongs on the list. Of course, the White House will argue that Pakistan is too important and State Department designation will undercut Pakistani cooperation with American forces in Afghanistan. This certainly is a real concern and perhaps an overriding one. The question for American policymakers then becomes whether the state terrorism designation should be so subjective and subject to diplomatic whim (as it was when the State Department removed North Korea despite its assistance to Hezbollah and the Tamil Tigers), or whether it should be above the considerations of day-to-day diplomacy. American diplomats will often find an excuse to absolve terror sponsors of responsibility in the hope of achieving better relations or cooperation. Still, it’s not a good idea for the Secretary of State to base American national security more on fiction than reality.

Here Congress could assert itself. Just as Congress passed the Palestine Liberation Organization Commitments Compliance Act (PLOCCA) requiring the State Department to report on PLO’s adherence to its commitment to cease conducting terrorism, perhaps it’s time to pass a similar measure requiring similar certification as a preliminary qualification for any aid or technical assistance to flow to Pakistan.

+ A A -
You may also like
Share via
Copy link