China's support to Pakistan's jihadists

MANIPAL, India, April 1 (UPI) -- After decades of denial, the U.S. military -- though not yet the State Department -- has begun to admit that the Pakistan military, a major "non-NATO ally," is the source of much of the capability of the Taliban thugs who are now sending NATO into a panic in Afghanistan.

Individuals within the Pakistan military said that no fewer than 30,000 jihadists are presently being trained by regular officers and army men, who are, of course, officially "on leave to visit family." Of the trainees, no fewer than 2,000 are being imparted proficiency in high explosives and in the commando-style operations that enabled a handful of operatives to hold off the Indian security establishment for three humiliating days in Mumbai from Nov. 26-28 last year.

The purpose of such assistance is to "ensure that Afghanistan, Kashmir and Central Asia emerge as allies of a rejuvenated Pakistan" and to see that "the Indian economic dream becomes a nightmare," the army sources said.

This second objective is of value to China, which is visibly uneasy at the accelerating pace of development in India, despite intense efforts by its communist allies in the ruling establishment to reverse economic reforms. It's no wonder that almost all the sensitive communications links of the Pakistan army -- including the unrecorded "ghost units" that guide terror operations -- are provided by China.

Unless those in authority in Beijing are as credulous as their counterparts in the CIA and in the U.S. State Department -- a difficult proposition to accept -- the Chinese vendors of the communications, explosives and other lethal equipment that ultimately reaches jihadists in Afghanistan, India and elsewhere must be aware of the unconventional nature of the end users of the goods and services they dispense.

An increase in terrorist activity in India would surely lead to a decline in that country's growth prospects. Therefore, if the activities of Pakistan's Inter Services Intelligence units cause a spike in terror activities in India, it is not sufficient reason for China to cut off its gifts to the army of force multipliers that end up in jihadist hands.

It is not only in Pakistan that China has, in effect, become a reliable ally of what are euphemistically known as "unconventional forces." Equipment and services from China flood into states such as Sudan, Iran, Syria and Somalia. In none of these states are the authorities squeamish about separating regular operations from those conducted by terror groups.

During the years when the Taliban was in power in Afghanistan, China was among its biggest benefactors, together with Pakistan, Turkey, the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia.

Of course, in the cause of showering largesse on the Pakistan army, few can rival the United States. Days ago, U.S. President Barack Obama announced the gift of a fresh $7.5 billion to Pakistan, supposedly to build schools, roads and other infrastructure.

What Obama apparently failed to pick up from his intelligence briefings was the fact that these schools, with their poisonous curricula and fanaticized staff, are the breeding grounds for jihad. Or that the Pakistani army has -- according to information available even to the civilian government -- diverted about 63 percent of the funds given to it by the United States "to fight terror" to operations that are India-specific, hardly a contribution to the war on terror.

Until the toxic content is removed from school curricula in Pakistan, unless jihadist elements within the teaching community are weeded out and replaced with genuine moderates, and unless religious schools confine themselves to the training of imams rather than to seeding the entire Pakistani civil and military structure with their products, most assistance given to Pakistan is a contribution to jihad.

What the U.S. government should do is impose immediate travel restrictions and financial sanctions on individuals and entities that aid terrorist groups such as al-Qaida and the Taliban. It is ironic that the sons, daughters and relatives of the very military officers who are assisting the Taliban are teeming in U.S. campuses and corporations, courtesy of successive indulgent administrations.

Amazingly, the very "experts" who in the 1990s called for help to what became the Taliban and who in the post-Sept. 11, 2001, phase advised the defanging of the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan to benefit the Pakistan military have remained the dominant voices in U.S. policy toward Afghanistan and Pakistan in both the George W. Bush and the Obama administrations. It appears that, in the wonderland of U.S. policy, nothing succeeds as well as failure.

The "new" policy announced by the Obama administration, unless accompanied by a push toward structural reforms in Pakistan's military and education system, will also end in failure. Not surprisingly, after Secretary of State Hillary Clinton generously gave her support to the so-called Punjabi plot -- the scheme of Pakistan army chief Ashfaq Kayani, Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz chief Nawaz Sharif and Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani to marginalize President Asif Ali Zardari -- there was an immediate spike in terrorist activity on both sides of the Afghanistan-Pakistan border.

With cash from the United States and sophisticated equipment from China, the jihad-friendly Pakistan military is on a roll. Its allies in terror groups around the world will be delighted.

As for the rest, all they can do is brace themselves for the terror attacks that will follow the consistent China-U.S. policy of allowing the Pakistan army to continue unmolested on the jihadi path initiated by the late Islamist President Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq nearly four decades ago.

--

(Professor M.D. Nalapat is vice chair of the Manipal Advanced Research Group, UNESCO peace chair and professor of geopolitics at Manipal University. Copyright M.D. Nalapat.)

--

(United Press International's "Outside View" commentaries are written by outside contributors who specialize in a variety of important issues. The views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of United Press International. In the interests of creating an open forum, original submissions are invited.)