Dangers in the endgame
US will now pressure Pakistan to play along with the peace process and conduct military operations in N. Waziristan.
US President Barack Obama’s announcement of a gradual troop withdrawal from Afghanistan and confirmation of overtures being made to the Taliban represent the formal beginning of the endgame.
This should be a moment of joy to those Pakistanis who believed that much of the militancy and terrorism in Pakistan could be attributed to US military presence in Afghanistan. And yet, it may not be as simple as that.
While Obama was not specific about US long-term plans for Afghanistan, what he said about Pakistan should be deeply worrying to us. In frighteningly candid terms, he made it clear that America would henceforth beam laser-like on Pakistan. Though willing to work with Pakistan “to root out the cancer of violent extremism”, he is no longer asking Pakistan to take out the militants — he is “insisting” that “it keep its commitments”. Pointing out that since Pakistan faced an existentialist threat, he said it was imperative for her to ensure that there are “no safe havens from which al Qaeda or its affiliates can launch attacks against our homeland or our allies”.
Obama’s announcement injects a note of urgency to our own policy assessment. For one, it does not signal an end to American involvement in the region. In fact, the US has already confirmed its interest in a long-term arrangement with Kabul for continuing control over some of its huge bases. This is likely to become a major bone of contention in the peace process with the Taliban and also arouse grave misgivings in neighbouring countries, particularly China, Iran and Russia, which are apprehensive that the US withdrawal could signal the start of another ‘Great Game’.
What exactly do these warnings mean for Pakistan? For one, they constitute grave challenges on both the political and military fronts. On the political, the US will demand that Pakistan ensure that the Taliban groups under its influence ‘play ball’ in the peace process, without taking us fully onboard. While US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has reiterated that the US wants us to be “part of the peace process”, she has also indicated that if Pakistan refuses to be cooperative, the option of ratcheting up pressure is always there. On the military front, the US has signalled its frustration with Pakistan’s failure to “address terrorist safe havens” in its territory. If this were to remain America’s perception about our policy, further arm-twisting, including delayed supply of arms, as already hinted at by Secretary Clinton, can be expected. We should also be in no doubt that at any hint of reluctance on our part, the US will not hesitate to increase the frequency and scope of drone attacks, if need be, deep inside Pakistan. In fact, if we were to reduce intelligence and security cooperation with the US, we could see greater US operations close to our frontiers, with all its concomitant consequences.
The risks for Pakistan are enormous. With an overwhelming majority of Pakistanis now viewing the US as an arch-enemy, any precipitate military operations in the country could push it towards civil war. Pakistan is also not sure of what the US intentions are in initiating dialogue with the Taliban. Rumours that the administration may have begun to look with favour at the so-called Blackwill formula, which calls for the partition of Afghanistan into the non-Pashtun north and the Pashtun south, could have disastrous consequences for the region.
The coming months will test both our resolve and our imagination, as we strive to promote our interests while protecting our assets. We cannot do so while in the current state of tension and mistrust with the US, nor can it be achieved by toeing the US line. The room for manoeuvre is narrow and the risks are great. Clarity at home and close consultations with allies abroad are essential if we are to remain relevant to the rapidly evolving developments.
Published in The Express Tribune, June 29th, 2011.
This should be a moment of joy to those Pakistanis who believed that much of the militancy and terrorism in Pakistan could be attributed to US military presence in Afghanistan. And yet, it may not be as simple as that.
While Obama was not specific about US long-term plans for Afghanistan, what he said about Pakistan should be deeply worrying to us. In frighteningly candid terms, he made it clear that America would henceforth beam laser-like on Pakistan. Though willing to work with Pakistan “to root out the cancer of violent extremism”, he is no longer asking Pakistan to take out the militants — he is “insisting” that “it keep its commitments”. Pointing out that since Pakistan faced an existentialist threat, he said it was imperative for her to ensure that there are “no safe havens from which al Qaeda or its affiliates can launch attacks against our homeland or our allies”.
Obama’s announcement injects a note of urgency to our own policy assessment. For one, it does not signal an end to American involvement in the region. In fact, the US has already confirmed its interest in a long-term arrangement with Kabul for continuing control over some of its huge bases. This is likely to become a major bone of contention in the peace process with the Taliban and also arouse grave misgivings in neighbouring countries, particularly China, Iran and Russia, which are apprehensive that the US withdrawal could signal the start of another ‘Great Game’.
What exactly do these warnings mean for Pakistan? For one, they constitute grave challenges on both the political and military fronts. On the political, the US will demand that Pakistan ensure that the Taliban groups under its influence ‘play ball’ in the peace process, without taking us fully onboard. While US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has reiterated that the US wants us to be “part of the peace process”, she has also indicated that if Pakistan refuses to be cooperative, the option of ratcheting up pressure is always there. On the military front, the US has signalled its frustration with Pakistan’s failure to “address terrorist safe havens” in its territory. If this were to remain America’s perception about our policy, further arm-twisting, including delayed supply of arms, as already hinted at by Secretary Clinton, can be expected. We should also be in no doubt that at any hint of reluctance on our part, the US will not hesitate to increase the frequency and scope of drone attacks, if need be, deep inside Pakistan. In fact, if we were to reduce intelligence and security cooperation with the US, we could see greater US operations close to our frontiers, with all its concomitant consequences.
The risks for Pakistan are enormous. With an overwhelming majority of Pakistanis now viewing the US as an arch-enemy, any precipitate military operations in the country could push it towards civil war. Pakistan is also not sure of what the US intentions are in initiating dialogue with the Taliban. Rumours that the administration may have begun to look with favour at the so-called Blackwill formula, which calls for the partition of Afghanistan into the non-Pashtun north and the Pashtun south, could have disastrous consequences for the region.
The coming months will test both our resolve and our imagination, as we strive to promote our interests while protecting our assets. We cannot do so while in the current state of tension and mistrust with the US, nor can it be achieved by toeing the US line. The room for manoeuvre is narrow and the risks are great. Clarity at home and close consultations with allies abroad are essential if we are to remain relevant to the rapidly evolving developments.
Published in The Express Tribune, June 29th, 2011.