Part of the problem is a certain measure of hypocrisy on the part of the US. Now that they are ready to begin withdrawing troops from Afghanistan, the US is willing to talk to segments of the Afghan-Taliban to save face. At the same time, they are not willing to afford the same luxury to Pakistan. A State Department spokesman said that only those Taliban groups which the US and Afghanistan governments had selected, could be part of the reconciliation process and that the Pakistani Taliban would not be included in that. The problem for Pakistan is that it will have to continue to tackle the Pakistani Taliban long after US troops have left and so it will want to reserve the right to begin negotiations with them.
What is heartening is that despite the numerous issues between the two countries, neither is willing to break-off relations altogether. This, too, is because of substantive reasons. Pakistan is too reliant on US aid to keep its economy afloat and so there is a limit on how much it can antagonise the US. For the Americans, even a slightly pliant Pakistan is preferable to one that has completely gone off the reservation. Like all alliances, this one too needs to be dictated by a touch of realism. Both countries need to acknowledge that their relationship is purely transactional and not based on mutual interests. Clinton and Khar went a long way towards precisely that honesty.
Published in The Express Tribune, February 25th, 2012.
COMMENTS (6)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
1733707590-0/Jay-Z-(5)1733707590-0-165x106.webp "article")
Well, I dislike the idea of talks regardless of who is doing it. At this point I can't even consider either Taliban of even members of the human race. The way they work, even if it would be the past, should not be something that can be wiped clean for the sake of anything. Words have no place in any scenario be it TTP or the Afghan Taliban. Unless those words are some witty kill shot line a person has been saving. As for the hypocrisy part. It's not. Yes, TTP has Taliban in its name. But, no matter what they say, officially, they are still considered a separate entity. TTP tries to be like the Taliban, but they're considered two different problems. I'll repeat I dislike the talking the idea before saying... TTP has no previous recognized claim to anything. Taliban was once a group that had valid political positions which would make people lean slightly in the direction of treating them as such. TTP are more or less just criminals who have no political place in anything as far as the world is concerned and they never have. Like a hypothetical ending of a war that didn't require killing the leader or a complete massacre which has happened many times in history. In that scenario, Taliban would be in that category. TTP is not.
this relationship will become less and less over time as the US determines they have less need or use for PAK going forward. For PAK the clock is ticking. With each passing event there is less and less support for PAK in the US Congress, US military and intelligence community and among the American people. Only 14% of the American people have a favorable view of PAK ranking it just above North Korea and Iran.
In the near future aid will be first reduced and later curtailed all together. PAK needs to prepare for this day because it is coming.
If the USA/Pakistan relationship is purely transactional then what does Pakistan have to barter with once America pulls most of it's troops out of Afghanistan? Seems to me that after May 2 America might be wondering whether Afghanistan was the proper target of their wrath.
"A State Department spokesman said that only those Taliban groups which the US and Afghanistan governments had selected, could be part of the reconciliation process and that the Pakistani Taliban would not be included in thatThe problem for Pakistan is that it will have to continue to tackle the Pakistani Taliban long after US troops have left and so it will want to reserve the right to begin negotiations with them. "
Since TTP does not atack NATO, naturally US would have no interest in negotiating with them. I would not read the US spokesman's staement as forbidding Pakistan from negotiating with TTP for its own internal insurgency, should it chose to. In fact US has supported Pakistan government when it comes to TTP by droning several key leaders of TTP including Behtulla which would help Pak forces.
It is true that US-PAK relations are transactional but it is wrong to conclude that the relationship serves only US interests and will hurt US more than PAK if the relationship is severed. After all, US-PAK relationship was in hiatus for ten years before 9/11 and it only hurt PAK in all walks of life.
After OBL fiasco, there is a general relationship fatigue in the US with PAK and it is up to PAK to salvage that relationship. Sec. Clinton is the best friend PAK ever had but I am not sure the current posture by PAK is reciprocating her friendship.
No American administration can walk away without getting a full answer from PAK on OBL.
To make or break relations between Pakistan and US are part of diplomacy.
Among other matters that are pending or discussion, debate and resolve is honesty which US is not willing to show in its real manner and colour.
The strange thing is that Pakistan has done lot more than it was expected to do and when we hear to do more, we do not even want to do any thing less than what was expected by the Obama Administration.
The relations between Pakistan and US are mismatched. Like the colour of the skin of Pakistanis which is black and the colour of the skin of American which is white.
How can people expect that black colour and white colour will match and where? It is just opposite to each other.