The fourth round

Published: August 12, 2017
SHARES
Email
The writer served as executive editor of The Express Tribune from 2009 to 2014

The writer served as executive editor of The Express Tribune from 2009 to 2014

Sustaining US operations in Afghanistan without Pakistani ground lines of communication would be very difficult and costly. Other considerations like the criticality of a nuclear armed Pakistan of 200 million remaining stable and also remaining at peace with its neighbours, peaceful internally and thriving economically, argue strongly for US-Pakistan cooperation.

If President Trump was to consider these arguments, there is a possibility that Pakistan could expect soon the revival of another transactional relationship (the fourth round) with the US.

But in view of the fact that the last three such relationships (during the regimes of Ayub, Zia and Musharrraf) had ended up causing gigantic socio-economic and political problems for Pakistan, Islamabad would like to see a qualitative change this time around in the nature of the relationship.

For example, Pakistan could request in return for facilities for ground lines of communications and dismantling of sanctuaries of Afghan Taliban and the Haqqanis in various parts of the country the revival of reconstruction opportunity zones (ROZs) on the Pakistan-Afghanistan border for the manufacture and export of textiles and apparels duty free to the US plus initiating the process of US-Pakistan bilateral trade agreement. The ROZs could be provided protection by joint Pakistan-Afghanistan troops patrolling the area. The US help could also be extended to Pakistan for establishing a free trade zone in the no-man’s land straddling the Durand Line now serving as a free terror zone.

The course of action the US has pursued since the early 2000s with regard to Pakistan has not produced the changes needed in Pakistan’s policies in Afghanistan. US strategists believe that Pakistanis tolerate the Taliban out of conviction that America will again desert them — just as it did in 1989. But the US has already stayed in Afghanistan for 16-plus years, with no plans to leave. Therefore, it should help allay Pakistani fears that it will again face an Afghanistan in chaos or an Afghanistan dominated by India. The US purpose should be to help Pakistan to change its calculus over time.

Washington might sketch out a vision of an improved relationship with Pakistan. This would certainly support the broader American interests, given Pakistan’s central role in the stability of the entire region.

While there is no easy answer about how to improve US relations with Pakistan, the US should expect that clear articulation of an enduring American commitment to Afghanistan and the region can help in gradually reducing the distrust and rivalry that often predominate its relationships in Central and South Asia today.

President George Bush had concluded back in 1989 that Afghanistan was not worth continued US investment. And after covert programmes in the 1980s to aid the Afghan Mujahideen, the United States effectively withdrew from the region.

But ignoring Afghanistan proved unwise. The turmoil that ensued in Afghanistan after 1989 ultimately gave rise to the Taliban. The US disengagement also helped create cynicism among Pakistani security officials about American motives and American dependability.

Pakistan was left largely on its own to cope with the aftermath of the successful Mujahideen effort against Soviet forces, absorbing millions of refugees and other burdens.

As a consequence Pakistani authorities point to this past American behavior to call into question US commitment to the region going forward and Islamabad had often then legitimately used this concern to justify its own policies of tolerating and in some cases supporting the Afghan Taliban’s safe havens on its territory.

The operational US goals in Afghanistan should be twofold. In the short term, the US objective should be an Afghanistan increasingly capable of handling its security challenges and governance duties with modest foreign help. In the longer term, the goal should be a peaceful, more prosperous, and better governed country that contributes to regional security.

Published in The Express Tribune, August 12th, 2017.

Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.

Facebook Conversations

Reader Comments (2)

  • Feroz
    Aug 12, 2017 - 11:01AM

    Fine argument made by the author but without a change in outlook, mindset and behavior Pakistan will struggle to change the course of the relationship. What is being suggested is that the Rent seeking has to take a different form, essentially packaging of demands made more palatable.

    So far the US interaction with Pakistan has not borne fruit because The State Department, Pentagon, NSA and White House had differences with no one being held accountable for failures. Trump seems intent on pinning responsibility for not only goal setting but also accountability for execution and the time frame he will set his advisers to show results likely very short. Transactional relationship therefore likely to continue but delivery from Pakistan will be properly weighed and measured. Margin for error is going to be small, price for duplicity very high.Recommend

  • Parvez
    Aug 13, 2017 - 9:44PM

    Second attempt : If America could figure out exactly why and how the got into Afghanistan, possibly then they may find a way to get out. It’s also worth considering that actually they don’t want to get out…….a study of the word map possibly explains why.Recommend

Leave Your Reply Below

Your comments may appear in The Express Tribune paper. For this reason we encourage you to provide your city. The Express Tribune does not bear any responsibility for user comments.

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

More in Opinion