A middle ground must be found

Both the US and Pakistan cannot prolong the current contest of who blinks first. A middle ground must be found.


Editorial October 21, 2011
A middle ground must be found

In her meeting with Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has more or less signalled what she and her powerful delegation are here to achieve: Pakistan’s change of its Afghan policy that, in the eyes of the US, causes clashes and cross-border terrorism between Pakistan and Afghanistan. She has, however, recognised the toughness of Pakistan’s stance by appreciating “the All Parties Conference’s resolution, which was a right message from Pakistan to the world”.

The visit is expected to further clarify the positions adopted on Afghanistan by the two sides, though it should be remembered that Washington has not gone along completely with what former US chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Michael Mullen said — that Pakistan was actually hand in glove with the Haqqani network striking across the Durand Line from North Waziristan and killing people. There has been some thaw between American military leaders and the Pakistan Army since the tense moment when Admiral Mullen spoke to a Congress committee, something for which he must have first obtained clearance from the US government.

But the Haqqani network issue heads the roster of topics to be discussed and Clinton is going to pitch it to President Asif Ali Zardari and in her interactions with other leaders. Her welcome of the thaw developing between Pakistan and India in the domain of economic links will not, however, lessen the intensity of the demands she would have probably made unless the military gives her the space she needs to sound less admonishing. Needless to say, it is the army which is now squarely in charge of handling the foreign and defence policies of Pakistan after the PPP-led government, joining the opposition, has practically ousted itself from the field as far as foreign policy is concerned. Therefore, it is clear that Clinton and her powerful military top brass will have to listen carefully to what the Pakistan Army says and see if there are areas of agreement in the generally gloomy picture of Pakistan-US relations at the present moment.

As far as Pakistan is concerned, the line was laid down by Army Chief General Kayani when he recently addressed the defence committees of the parliament at GHQ, saying Pakistan was not going to launch a military operation in North Waziristan just yet and that he will choose the moment in light of what he considers the “right timing and required capabilities”. He had referred to a two-front situation which Pakistan could not accept, referring clearly to the growing Indian clout in Afghanistan after a ‘strategic’ accord between Kabul and New Delhi. A more aggressive gesture made by Kayani was contained in his repeated reference to the Pakistan military’s rejection of American military aid. But even this is not the last word said in the context of Pakistan-US relations.

The US can’t afford to go to war inside/with Pakistan given the political consensus among the politicians of the country — who are otherwise at each other’s throat — and among the people of Pakistan excited by the media into an anti-American frenzy not good for Pakistani diplomacy and the Pakistan Army’s own options in the face of a superpower. The army is fighting with the Taliban — who are hand in glove with the Haqqani network and al Qaeda — in many parts of Pakistan’s tribal areas. It may have leverage with the US on the basis of the Nato supply line through Pakistan but its economic base is crumbling even as governance dips to its lowest. It simply can’t afford to have the US increase drone attacks inside its territory even as the Taliban loot banks and kidnap Pakistani citizens to keep their war against Pakistan going.

The Pakistani ‘comparison’ between the Haqqani network presumably sheltering in North Waziristan and the Swat warlord Fazlullah somewhere in the Afghan province of Kunar is inapt as it indirectly pledges Pakistan to go after the Haqqanis if the US hunts down Fazlullah. The fact is that Pakistan will not act against the safe haven of the Haqqanis, full stop. Both the US and Pakistan cannot prolong the current contest of who blinks first. A middle ground of continued dialogue and cooperation must be found.

Published in The Express Tribune, October 22nd, 2011.

COMMENTS (6)

You Said It | 13 years ago | Reply

The Pakistani ‘comparison’ between the Haqqani network ... and ... Fazlullah ... is inapt as it indirectly pledges Pakistan to go after the Haqqanis if the US hunts down Fazlullah. The fact is that Pakistan will not act against the safe haven of the Haqqanis, full stop. Both the US and Pakistan cannot prolong the current contest of who blinks first. A middle ground of continued dialogue and cooperation must be found.

If "Pakistan will not against the safe have of the Haqqanis, full stop" then why continue the diaglogue and cooperation at all. That should be full-stopped too. What you are saying is that Afghanistan and US must do as Pakistan says, but there is no way that Pakistan will return the favour. That's not cooperation -- it is Pakistani hegemony. The world might as well crown Pakistan the sole super power with all other countries as its vassals...

Cautious | 13 years ago | Reply

The USA has always understood who controls the foreign policy in Pakistan - probably more so than the vast majority of Pakistani's. It's also clear that the USA has a better understanding of the actual accomplishments, failures, strengths and weakness of the Pakistani military and isn't impressed.. . The USA has made it clear. It is not going to tolerate it's military or civilians being attacked from militants within Pakistan. Pakistan can handle the problem on it's own or the USA will handle the problem for them. The status quo is not acceptable. The large entourage was a public show to demonstrate to Pakistan military that all of the elements of the USA power structure (civilian, military, intelligence) are delivering the same message ---TIMES UP!

VIEW MORE COMMENTS
Replying to X

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.

For more information, please see our Comments FAQ