Sept. 28 (Bloomberg) -- The Obama administration is in the final stages of a “formal review” on whether to declare the Pakistan-based Haqqani group a “foreign terrorist organization,” U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said.
The administration’s review comes in the aftermath of comments by Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who said last week that the group attacked the U.S. embassy and American troops in Afghanistan.
Clinton said today that the issue is whether to designate the Haqqani group a terrorist organization when its “main kingpins,” including the founder and his sons, already have been sanctioned individually as foreign terrorists.
Mullen’s declaration in Senate testimony last week that Haqqani operatives are a “proxy” for Pakistan’s intelligence service has complicated the debate.
Adding the Haqqani group to the list of terrorist organizations might lead to demands that Pakistan be declared a state sponsor of terrorism. That would put at risk Pakistan’s cooperation as the U.S. tries to snuff out al-Qaeda’s core and other militants in the country’s tribal areas.
Clinton, speaking to reporters at the State Department, did not address the alleged connection between the Haqqani network and Pakistan’s intelligence service. She said the U.S. has had “a lot of tangible results” from anti-terrorism cooperation with Pakistan, including moves against al-Qaeda.
Designating Pakistan a state sponsor of terrorism would put it in the company of only four other countries -- Cuba, Iran, Sudan and Syria -- and might trigger a nationalist backlash in Pakistan. It would require halting U.S. aid to Pakistan, force the U.S. to oppose World Bank loans to Pakistan, and end cooperation between the two countries in fighting terrorism and trying to stabilize Afghanistan.
Naming Pakistan a sponsor of terrorism “would turn it into a pariah state,” Robert Lamb, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, said in a telephone interview. “That would complicate a lot of aspects of the relationship, which is complicated enough already. It’s ugly, but it’s not unsalvageable.”
The administration is under new pressure to designate the Haqqanis a terrorist organization alongside 49 others, including al-Qaeda, Lebanon’s Hezbollah, and Hamas, the Palestinian Islamist group that controls the Gaza Strip.
After Mullen testified to the Senate Armed Services Committee, Senator Dianne Feinstein, a California Democrat and chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, wrote Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that the Haqqani group “meets the standards for designation” as a terrorist organization. So far, said congressional officials, Clinton hasn’t responded.
“I think there’s going to be increasing congressional pressure on them to list the Haqqani network as a foreign terrorist organization,” said Lisa Curtis, a former CIA analyst and now a senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation policy group in Washington.
“If we know that the Haqqani network is behind these major attacks on U.S. interests and we fail to confront them, that is a signal of weakness and it simply invites more attacks,” she said.
Nuland and other administration and military officials signaled a reluctance to sanction Pakistan.
Pentagon Press Secretary George Little said yesterday that the U.S. wants to “maintain a relationship with Pakistan that’s grounded in common interests, to include going after terrorists that threaten both countries.”
“There are differences from time to time,” Little told reporters at the Pentagon. “Those differences have been made public, and we continue to discuss those differences in private. We look forward to working with the Pakistanis to try to resolve them.”
Today, Little took a harder line, telling reporters that Defense Secretary Leon Panetta agrees with Mullen’s testimony. “The Secretary and Chairman both agree” there are “links between elements of the Pakistan government and Haqqani network,” Little said.
“That includes the ISI,” Little said. “That must end.”
Pakistani military officials told reporters in Islamabad on Sept. 25 that they had decided not to take action against the Haqqani group because their forces are stretched too thin.
If tensions escalated, Pakistan might again, as it did in a previous diplomatic confrontation, cut supply lines to U.S., NATO and Afghan forces in Afghanistan from its port city of Karachi. Alternative land or air routes are more costly and difficult.
The Pakistanis, said two U.S. intelligence officials, also might abandon secret agreements that permit unmanned U.S. drones to collect intelligence and attack targets in designated areas of Pakistan.
The U.S. already is restricted from operating over the Haqqanis’ suspected base in North Waziristan or the border city of Quetta, home to the main Afghan Taliban group. They also might expel some or all of the classified number of U.S. intelligence officers and special operations forces who are training Pakistani troops and helping target drone attacks, the officials said.
Designating the Haqqani network a terrorist organization would do little to stop the group, said Curtis of the Heritage Foundation. The Haqqanis, she said, probably still would be able to garner financial support from their allies in the Persian Gulf region and backing from the Pakistan spy agency, the Directorate of Inter-Services Intelligence, known as ISI.
A U.S. designation of the Haqqanis isn’t likely to change Pakistani policy either, said Christine Fair, a Pakistan expert at Georgetown University in Washington.
The ISI and the Pakistani military regard the Haqqani network and other militants as allies in their campaign to maintain Pakistani influence in Afghanistan and prevent arch- rival India from getting a toehold on Pakistan’s western border, said Fair and other specialists.
“They believe that the Haqqanis would protect Pakistan’s interest in any future setup in Afghanistan,” Curtis said.
Rejecting the charges that his government uses the Haqqanis as a proxy, Pakistani Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani said in a Sept. 25 statement that U.S. policy on Afghanistan shows “confusion and policy disarray.”
“We may just let this ride,” said Marvin Weinbaum, a former Afghanistan and Pakistan intelligence analyst at the State Department and director of the Center for Pakistan Studies at the Middle East Institute in Washington. “We know what direction the U.S.-Pakistan relationship is going, and now we have no idea what the bottom looks like.”
--With assistance from Tony Capaccio, Indira A.R. Lakshmanan and Nicole Gaouette in Washington. Editors: John Walcott, Steven Komarow
To contact the reporters on this story: John Walcott in Washington at email@example.com; Viola Gienger in Washington at firstname.lastname@example.org
To contact the editor responsible for this story: Mark Silva at email@example.com