ShareThis Page
News

No 'hot pursuit,' Pakistan tells U.S.

| Sunday, Jan. 5, 2003

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — Pakistan insisted Saturday that it never gave the United States permission to chase Taliban and al-Qaida fighters from Afghanistan into Pakistan, the latest fallout from a week-old border incident that is still touching raw nerves.

"Absolutely not. The Americans cannot cross the Pakistani border from Afghanistan to chase what they say are vestiges of Taliban and al-Qaida," Information Minister Sheikh Rashid Ahmed told The Associated Press yesterday.

The claim directly contradicts American assertions that U.S. troops could cross the border if they were in hot pursuit of suspects.

U.S. military spokesman Maj. Stephen Clutter said Friday that American forces "reserve the right to go after them and pursue them." He said that notion was "something that Pakistan is aware of," though he said U.S. forces hadn't gone into Pakistani territory.

The "hot pursuit" issue came dramatically to the fore after an American soldier was shot by a rogue Pakistani border guard along the Afghan-Pakistani border Dec. 29. The soldier survived the head wound and was treated at a U.S. military hospital in Germany.

The Americans, who say the entire incident took place in Afghanistan, called for air support, and a warplane bombed a building the attacker ran into for cover.

Pakistan's government said it was still investigating if at least one of the U.S. bombs landed just inside Pakistan, as some witnesses reported.

Publicly, both Washington and Pakistan said the clash would not damage their relations. But it further angered influential Islamic groups, who staged scattered rallies across Pakistan on Friday to denounce the United States for invading Afghanistan and threatening to do the same in Iraq.

Yesterday, a key leader of the main opposition group in Pakistan's Parliament, Qazi Hussain Ahmad, said he was certain an American bomb hit his country — but that the government was too afraid to admit it for fear arousing more outrage.

"People here were already against our government's policy of allying itself with the United States," said Ahmad, who heads a six-party religious alliance called Muthida Majlis-e-Amal or United Action Forum. "Thanks to developments this week, this attitude has hardened even more."

As early as March 2002, U.S. commanders said their troops might enter Pakistan, but only as a last resort and with Pakistan's approval.

Pakistani Foreign Minister Khursheed Kasuri also weighed in on the dispute yesterday.

"From the very first day, it has been absolutely clear and fully understood … that operations within Pakistani territory would be conducted solely and exclusively by our own forces and in response to decisions taken by Pakistan," he said in a written statement.

But officials emphasized that Pakistan had no intention of ending its backing for U.S.-led forces mopping up remnants of Afghanistan's former rulers — something conservative Islamic leaders have demanded for more than a year.

Since President Gen. Pervez Musharraf allied Pakistan with the United States after the Sept. 11 attacks on New York and the Pentagon, Pakistani security agencies have worked closely with the FBI to arrest more than 422 suspected Taliban and al-Qaida insurgents in Pakistan.

"We want to continue this cooperation," Ahmed said.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.

click me