The writer is a former Ambassador and former Assistant Secretary General of OIC
A deeper look at the so-called “strategic relationship” between Pakistan and the US raises the question that can such cooperation between a superpower and a middling power, as between Pakistan and the US in the war on terror, strictly be termed a strategic partnership? One is afraid it cannot always be described as such. There may be more than one interpretation but perhaps, it would be more accurate to describe the relationship as a temporary confluence of interest in a given scenario.
The US reacted to a terrorist attack and Pakistan became a victim of circumstances due to what we once prided ourselves on, that is, our strategic geopolitical location, which, incidentally, proved to be a double-edged sword. The US understandably over-reacted in the manner of all superpowers. We capitulated without having ensured a loophole for ourselves in case the going got too hot to handle. That was our first mistake!
Over the years, we have been sending the wrong signals to the US. We may have expressed our unhappiness at certain events but we never displayed the gumption to take a firm stand. The US unilaterally opted to move the goalposts several times in the course of the war on terror. Our feeble protestations left something to be desired and our ‘ally’ virtually got away with murder each time. Let us face it: one firm stand on principles is worth a hundred feeble protestations.
Now, as we move towards new elections, it is the right time to pause and introspect. We have to ask ourselves: how often has the sovereignty of the country been under threat since the start of the war on terror? There has, no doubt, been more than one occurrence that can be classed as a violation of sovereignty under international law and norms. Our react ion on these occasions has been more of acquiescence than protest.
The US has, over the past years, been constantly upping the ante, to use an Americanism. On our part, we have taken everything in our stride. Examples abound. The US administration has nurtured the habit of overriding our concerns. So, if they look askance at our taking a stand it should not be entirely surprising.
Now, to briefly touch on the way out of this crisis. We need to do what we should have done in the first place, before we plunged headlong into the war on terror. We should have given serious thought to our options, weighed them against our set of priorities and decided on red lines in terms of our national interest. It may still not be too late to, at least, partially save the situation.
If one has dug oneself into a hole, it is always a good policy to stop digging. So, it may be the time to work out the cost-benefit ratio of our adventure as the frontline state in the war on terror. If this ratio is adverse, we may have to rethink our options in the light of our national interest.
There is also the need to initiate a heart-to-heart talk with our American ally. There is no need at all for public posturing or of carrying out negotiations via the media. These things are best carried out in confidence. Red lines have to be mutually agreed upon. The threat of the cut off of assistance has to be faced maturely. There is no alternative to tightening our belts and reducing the chasms between our means and desires. We cannot hope to eat our cake and have it too.
Last but certainly not the least, it must be recognised that the order of our priorities has gone horribly awry. It is imperative that we reset our priorities to conform to our national interest, that is and must remain supreme.
Published in The Express Tribune, April 18th, 2013.
COMMENTS (31)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
1731329418-0/BeFunky-collage-(39)1731329418-0-405x300.webp "article")
@author,
"The US reacted to a terrorist attack and Pakistan became a victim of circumstances due to what we once prided ourselves on, that is, our strategic geopolitical location,"
Wrong. Pakistan was not a "victim of circumstanced due to its strategic geopolitical location". Pakistan was not a victim. It was the chief "perpetrator" in that, it nurtured global terrorists on its soil as strategic assets, who spanned out to do global terror attacks. Worse, even after joining the US in the war on terror, Pakistan was playing the double game. While handing over lower ranked terrorists to the US, Pakistan was still nurturing Islamic terrorists on its soil. Osama bin Laden being a good example.
@Seema: Thank you Seema. I invite you to the page Asian Fraternity on Facebook. This page has been designed to promote cordial relations among all Asian nations.
@antanu: "@G. Din: and who is this WE….? your attempt to fake your identity is childish." Read my comment again and with your eyes wide open. The "WE" you read is within quote marks and refers to what the Americans might say to this author. There is no faking of identities. You are a man severely crippled by your anti-Americanism.
@Manoj Joshi India: A fair analysis, but our power hungry establishment as usual will bow to US pressure... and will plunge our nation to another disaster.... Zia brought Mujahdeen and Kalashnikov culture and sectarian violence, Mush brought us terrorist, and suicide bombers, drone attacks... God Knows, what else we, as a nation, have to suffer.
@antanu: "@G. Din: and who is this WE….? your attempt to fake your identity is childish"
Like you who always claim to be an indian from Kolkota?
* We cannot hope to eat our cake and have it too.* Really? But that is what Pakistan has always believed. That the world owes it a living. Is that belief going to change anytime soon?
@Manoj Joshi India: spot on bro... we all must take notice of US designs in the region and india has to play a major role.
@G. Din: and who is this WE....? your attempt to fake your identity is childish.
The United States of America has as a capitalist or neo-imperialist nation tried to control and dominate the lesser nations across the globe wherein The Islamic Republic of Pakistan has been no exception. During the initial years of Pakistan when this nation had been formed as a result of the partition of British India perhaps the then policy framers who had been quite new to the idea and concept of statecraft could not perceive or show the desired vision with regard to developing a well framed foreign policy. The leadership of that period leaned towards The United States of America for financial and military support for which the nation that was Pakistan has had to pay a rather heavy price. Although Field Marshal Ayub Khan had in his book 'Friends not Masters' shared his views about the US but, his successors perhaps could not sustain the same vision and the military debacle of 1971 against India further pushed Pakistan into the US camp. The Soviet invasion into Afghanistan that followed a few years later in 1978 further aggravated the problem in South Asia with the US playing a predominant role within Pakistan in order to promote the Mujaheddin in Afghanistan against the Communist rule which ultimately led to the creation of the Frank stein Monster of terrorism and religious fundamentalism which was to become a menace for the US as well as Pakistan. No doubt Pakistan has been used as a tool by the US to realise their political ends in South Asia and now when the role of Pakistan has ceased to be what it used to be they are being rubbed the wrong way. During the past no doubt India too has suffered due to Pak-sponsored terrorism in Punjab and Kashmir and the after effects still persist however there is a change in the matrix of bilateral relationship between the two neighbours. The United States of America is now trying to attack the sovereignty of The Islamic Republic of Pakistan as they have done in the past with many other nations and to name a few The Islamic Republic of Iran and Republic of Iraq, Vietnam etc and off course even with The Republic of India the past has not been the way it should have been with the US. The People's Republic of China off course is now the biggest political eye sore for the US and their efforts are to create disturbance in Tibet in order to check the growing influence of China and in addition to create a diplomatic rift between North Korea and South Korea thus creating grounds to reach the nearest point of China by entering North Korea. Pakistan now has to play a role with caution and a higher degree of diplomatic maturity with regard to the US which alone can safeguard their (Pakistan's) sovereignty.
@nrmr44: Thats exactly what I wanted to convey in my earlier comment but chose to be polite in deference to author's background. If that's the mindset of the leading lights of our elite foreign service, we are truly doomed.
@vasan: Our establishment has habit of playing double games on national and international level.
@3rdRockFromTheSun: Agree
Incredible! I've never seen so much froth that rode on so little substance. In fact, no substance whatsoever. No list of options and no action points, let alone any projection of outcomes or examination of likely consequences. If this is the result of education, every illiterate in Pakistan is a national asset!
Recycled fluff with no concrete suggestions.... All the symptoms, causes have already been discussed. Time for prescriptions - concrete ones... not mealy-mouthed suggestions.
I went thru the article twice to see if there were any concrete suggestions apart from "we reset our priorities to conform to our national interest". Then I realized the Ambassador had been an Assistant Secretary General of Oh I See, which is well known to always take immediate and tangible action on issues facing the Muslim world!
I think it is high time Pak has stopped played a victim syndrom in WOT. It is high time Pak accept their hand in promoting and sponcering the monsters called Taliban, of any variety, and it is high time Pak accept that they played double games right from 1947 onwards till date. It is high time Pak accept that they went to convince Mullah omar to handover OBL but instead begged and pleaded to take on US hoping that they would reap the benefit of war. It is also high time to confess their role in sheltering OBL in Abbotabad and come clean on all terrorism related issues. Then may be, may be one would listen to the victim story.
“* Relationships between unequal states are never just.”* How would the author characterize relations between Pakistan and China? +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Answer: “* Relationships between unequal states are never just.”*
The only force in the world which is a threat to Pakistan is its own strategic assets who are killing the innocent civilians and foot soldiers by tens of thousands. Pakistan has to stop dilly dallying and play footsy and take a firm action against them. Once they are out of the terrorist business there would be no threat. Not even 1965 war has killed this many Pakistanis as these terrorists and we are sitting on our hands with huge army and WMD.
First mistake was creation of the wall of Islam to stop Soviets in Afghanistan at the behest of USA for monetary gains( for army not the Nation) Second mistake was to try deceive the USA by acting as double agent.. USA stripped the opportunity / option for a third mistake.
"It is imperative that we reset our priorities to conform to our national interest, that is and must remain supreme."-- Very true. All these mistakes committed keeping in mind the national interest as perceived by the army. Their problem is that .army's perception/ definition of national interest is somewhat different from that of the civilian perception.
Middling power?!
Over the years, we have been sending the wrong signals to the US. We may have expressed our unhappiness at certain events but we never displayed the gumption to take a firm stand. The US unilaterally opted to move the goalposts several times in the course of the war on terror. Our feeble protestations left something to be desired and our ‘ally’ virtually got away with murder each time. Let us face it: one firm stand on principles is worth a hundred feeble protestations.
Sure! Pakistan has had a clear and firm stand all along - we will take your money and we will do 10% of what we said we will do. And by the way, we will continue with this subterfuge till taliban takes over. Not Afghanistan dear readers, but Pakistan!
Dear Author, let me do the cost estimates in case we decided to continue with our policies of first line of defense & achieving foreign policies objectives using jihadis. We will be surrounded by two hostile neighbours reverse engineering terror. The financial embargo will ensure that we will be unable to travel from airport to home, we have to walk as there will be no money to buy fuel. No loans from IMF, WB, ADB etc. The international media will be hostile, no friends in UN except Iran, we will be declared terrorist state. So we will be history.
"There is a saying: there is nothing to fear but fear itself" Your Op ed start on wrong footnote. "there is nothing to fear but fear itself" Said by US President. I think you owe an explanation that why didn't you mention his name to use quote. ET: it is important to know writer state of mind when he write about such topic.
"We capitulated without having ensured a loophole for ourselves in case the going got too hot to handle. That was our first mistake!"
What is it with Pakistani establishment & delusions of grandeur? You had nothing to bargain with - the Americans were on the warpath and nothing would have stopped them! If AQ had been in Nepal after 9/11; even your neighbour to the east would have had to comply with the American demands. That was probably the only smart decision Musharraf made! Having made that decision; your establishment read the tea leaves wrong - insisted on playing both sides at the same time; hoping the Americans would just go away. The US has been forced to 'up the ante' becoz of your half hearted support. The Americans wouldn't have needed drones if you had held up your part of the bargain - closing the borders to prevent infiltration into and out of Afg and going after terrorists on your side. The end result is that you have antagonized both parties; each of whom you half-heartedly support. And all these talks of sovereignity - what happens to the same sovereignity when all your foreign 'guests' - Uzbeks, Arabs, Chechens, Afg taliban etc abuse it every day, without protests from your 'establishment'?
This is a very poorly written article.
A perfectly worded and theoritically perfect article pushing all the right buttons. The author's command of language is in line with his diplomatic expereience.
But as they say the devil lies in the detail. I need not go into details. Suffice is to say how could we wriggle out of WAR ON TERROR by not agreeing to try stopping cross border attacks from our soil against a UN recognized country?
It's 'we cannot have our cake and eat it too' not the other way round, an easy mistake to make but at least ET should have corrected it.
"There is also the need to initiate a heart-to-heart talk with our American ally. There is no need at all for public posturing or of carrying out negotiations via the media. These things are best carried out in confidence. Red lines have to be mutually agreed upon." "Our American ally" would say to that:"we have done all those things but the problem is lack of good faith on the part of Pakistan at every turn. You accepted our arms aid under various pacts for use against communists but you went ahead and used it all against India which put our relations with India under threat. You said you are our ally against terrorism, yet sheltered the big sheikh of terrorism under the protection of your armed forces. There are other instances, too. So, dear author, what do we do now?" Does this author have any answers?
"* Relationships between unequal states are never just."* How would the author characterize relations between Pakistan and China?