The Parliamentary Committee on National Security has done a shoddy job. Its pompously-titled report on guidelines for revised terms of engagement with the US, Nato and Isaf is a mixture of clichés and knee-jerk reaction to a chain of bad events that have caused a near-complete crash of Pakistan’s relations with the United States. Far from being a document that could inspire healthy, forward-looking debate on important facets of the country’s diplomatic challenges, it is confusing to read and even more difficult to comprehend from the point of view of its eventual implementation. Let us have a look at its fatal flaws.
If the aim of the author and its contributors was to pave the path of a more balanced foreign policy, away from extreme diplomatic dependence on Washington, then the product falls short of sending this message across.
Out of its 41 main points and sub-points, 31 are focused directly or indirectly on the US. The rest of the ‘general foreign policy’ has been covered literally in 135 words. This includes relations with Russia, China, India, the Islamic countries and Kashmir.
This imbalance of focus reinforces the image that for right or wrong reasons, the parliamentarians like the ‘establishment’, cannot get their eyes and minds off Washington. One wonders how the Chinese feel at being reduced to an eight-word line in a document that commands the government “to review the present foreign policy keeping in view the aspirations of the people of Pakistan.”
Even engagement with Washington has not been handled thoughtfully. The document attempts to lock problematic ties with the US in a kind of a paper cage. Instead of proposing fundamental principles of engagement, the draft is a litany of desires and apprehensions. The bullet point wisdom of the parliamentarians does not address the fundamental question as to what sort of strategic centrality should Washington enjoy in Pakistan’s foreign policy. The details of how much the road-use tax on Nato containers should be is of no importance if more black and white issues are left untackled.
One such issue is whether the public representatives see Washington’s aims and goals in the region to be in line with Islamabad’s or not. If the objectives are aligned then the proposed strategies have to complement this assessment. Long-term objectives and shared goals then need to be pursued with a ‘no-matter-what’ attitude. Then seeking a presidential apology for Salala attack cannot be allowed to veto the intended benefits we hope to attain by staying on the right side of Washington.
However, if the goals clash fundamentally, the recommendations would take a different tone altogether. In that case, opening of road supply routes becomes a settled issue: Pakistan would not let the sinews of war pass through its territory if this cooperation ends up fuelling violence inside its own territory. Pakistan will not accept US aid. Cooperation in the war against terror would also end or will be gradually scaled back to point zero. The framework of assessing the quantum of harmony or conflict in Pakistan’s relations with the US should have been the core concern of the committee. Only after this assessment could policy guidelines be suggested. This element is totally missing from the document.
The general thrust of perception about Washington should have been worked out by the committee. We cannot expect the US to give us the kind of civil nuclear deal it has struck with India, if we also believe that Washington is conspiring to dismantle our nuclear arsenal. This thrust of thought should have been the prime focus of the document, which regrettably offers no clarity or guideline in this regard.
This poorly-conceived and lame review document has now furnished the basis of media and parliamentary debate in the country. The argument that this is just a ‘working draft’ and can be changed completely is disingenuous. The words spread on the sheets of the report are echoing everywhere: they are setting the tone and tenor of the discourse all around. It would require brave hearts and robust minds to inject substance and vision in this debate — something the parliamentary report should have done.
Published in The Express Tribune, March 23rd, 2012.
COMMENTS (20)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
PAK lives in a very small world.
@sidjeen: "i did not expect analyst of the caliber of Talat to actually misguide our nation into thinking that our parliamentarians actually have a say in the making of foreign policy."
Don't blame Talat, the leeches should have informed and taken citizens into confidence instead of feeding white lies that all was hunky dory. They have failed completely. They have known deep in their hearts that they never intended to deliver, in the first place.
Any idea why people are on the streets to protest, everyday? You keep eatings cakes while the unwashed can't even afford to buy grass.
'tards are running our government. What else do you expect?
i did not expect analyst of the caliber of Talat to actually misguide our nation into thinking that our parliamentarians actually have a say in the making of foreign policy.
Excellent analysis Talat Sahib. Pakistan is under pressure and those in power are actually powerless!
Talat, I believe it will take many more election cycles to have good leaders running our country and the foreign policy. As you have highlighted, at present thats what we got; mediocre and ignorant bunch of politicians raising empty slogans in the name of policy proposals.
I have tried googling to see the actual transcript of the recommendations. Does anyone have the url for that?
Excellent article Talat. However, what do you expect when our cabinet consists of a bunch of illiterate idiots?
Did anyone honestly expect inept politicians to come out with a visionary document?
@Talat Hussain: You did not drag in Poor Misbah in your English Articles!.. Do drag him here as well, because that sells to the popular viewer. And to sell things to the pupular viewer needs no argument. Lagay Raho.
Should anyone be surprised? Seriously? This was expected given this is PAK. This document was not a foundation for building a lasting policy toward the US or any other nation. It was a document written to appeal to the people of PAK going into all the written and unwritten “sins” of the US and the costs it requires to correct these.
@Dr Waqas:
What would be a "visionary" foreign policy?
Nothing good can be expected from this government.
It is despairing to see just eight liner sentence for China, which should have been our top priority in setting the fundamental policy and for America it should been the opposite as to how to get rid from them in the best way possible. Unfortunately its the other way round. Very thought provoking findings, Talat Hussain.
I think the issue is tied to another article published on ET yesterday. The root cause is the lack of expertise in civilian era on the issue of international relations. I think the issue goes even deeper and that is inability of our leadership to see how global configuration of powers will look like in a decade or more and how should we position ourselves in the new global architecture politically / socially / economically. It is interesting to note here that the elephants (in metaphorical terms) that we are dealing with whether it be US, India, or China all have different strategic horizons but certainly longer and therefore much well thought than ours. The solution is to attract more brilliant minds to this intellectually starved area.
Talat, Well written and to the point. I wish the committee takes a lead from your advice!!!
Brilliant piece...vy specific n to da point
Brilliantly put talat bhai.Unfortunately none of our parlimentarians or the rest of politicians possess robust minds and brave hearts to create a visionary foreign policy.