But even as the two sides continue to talk, it would be foolish to pretend that relations are back on track. The presence of the Haqqani network on Pakistani soil, and the alleged support they are given will continue to remain a point of contention. The fact is that as the US begins its phased withdrawal from Afghanistan, the Obama administration needs Pakistan to tackle the Afghan Taliban so that they can claim the withdrawal was a sign of victory, not retreat. Pakistan, for its part, is hedging its bets. Wanting influence in a post-withdrawal Afghanistan, it sees no incentive in throwing its lot in with the US. No matter how many meetings are held, this essential fact is unlikely to change. And with the US also prepared to talk with the Afghan Taliban, including the Haqqani network, the status quo will probably remain.
Disagreement about the Haqqani network, however, does not have to mean a complete break in ties. There are still many points at which our interests converge with those of the Americans. Defeating the Pakistani Taliban, for one, should be a priority for both countries. It is also in the interest of the US to ensure that Pakistan does not economically collapse, as that would pave the way to further instability and possibly the toppling of the current government with one that is far more anti-American. Just for that reason alone, aid will continue to pour in and may also be accompanied by further trade. Despite the mistrust on both sides, both countries have too much at stake to simply go their separate ways.
Published in The Express Tribune, October 15th, 2011.
COMMENTS (7)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
@Bawa: India is suffering...having a neighbor like Pakistan......if there was god's benevolence, Singapore would have been our neighbor.
US must tolerate Pakistan's support of Haqqanis because +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ According to the editorial:
1."Defeating the Pakistani Taliban, for one, should be a priority for both countries. "
2."It is also in the interest of the US to ensure that Pakistan does not economically collapse"
In my opinion both are weak assumptions...clutching to straws.
.
@Santosh - Do not forget India's vicious hand in the Afghan/Pakistan blood bath . . . .India should also suffer (through devine justice) as much pain as Afghanistan and Pakistan has. The opportunist India has been the handler, the puppet master . . . they are shrewd enough to play the war game from the back door and they are very good at that!! Historically Pakistan has been unable to handle security effectively (this time being the worst) in a civillian rule and Afghanistan has Indian offices all over busy targeting Pakistan so freely . . . so there you go!!! Military rule in Pakistan keeps India in line and keeps the terrorist away and thats a bitter fact for India who goes all over the world whining and crying every time Pakistan has a military rule. Regard and bye bye.
During his day-long trip on October 13, he met with the president, prime minister, foreign minister and the all-important chief of army staff.
ET, you being too naughty...
sad but true
this is the land of ghazni, ghauri ,mugal etc. all-important chief of army staff’,is keeping up tradition. Editor is just doing his job.All other elected people is not that important in pakistani democracy.
Defeating the Pakistani Taliban should be a priority for Pakistan. But there is no reason that it should be a priority for the rest of the world including the US. The US's prime priority should be the defeat of the Afghan Taliban. So long as Pakistan continues to support the Afghan Taliban, the US should hold back action against the Pakistan Taliban. Pakistan needs to feel the pain of its association with extremist elements, and it is important that Pakistanis suffer as much pain as the Afghans do. This is moral, legal and divine justice.
What does ET mean when it says 'all-important chief of army staff'. So is the 'president, prime minister, foreign minister' nothing. One is answerable to the people while the other seeks their obedience.