The Americans have not been helpful either. Not only has Washington refused to provide an apology which it ritually offers to others but it also hardened its public utterances. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s warning to Pakistan while in India was needlessly provocative and her choice of location inexplicable, especially for someone viewed as a friend.
Soon thereafter, the Obama Administration decided to drop legislation regarding the Reconstruction Opportunity Zones. This confirmed dwindling interest in initiatives relating to Pakistan, even if geared to weaning the youth in the tribal areas away from extremism and into gainful economic employment. The US Congress’s current mood of belligerence towards Pakistan was further confirmed when influential committees of the White House introduced fresh legislation to tighten the conditions on provision of assistance to Pakistan, including one that would make US aid subject to reopening of land routes to Nato, while another would place military and intelligence under greater scrutiny. Even the Chicago Nato Summit invitation has been turned into an instrument to pressure Pakistan to adopt a cooperative attitude, especially on the opening of supply routes.
Diplomatic and military representatives are currently engaged in hectic efforts to resolve this issue prior to the summit, whose invitation is being dangled before our leadership, making Pakistan’s eagerness to be invited inelegantly obvious. The announcement of the DCC meeting and Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani Khar’s remarks are signals of the government’s readiness to approve compromises that have already been finalised. Having made the mistake of boycotting the Bonn Conference, which was of greater relevance to us, we do not want to miss out on the Chicago Summit, which is to discuss Nato’s role in Afghanistan, post-2014.
Pakistan’s leadership would, however, do well to remember that while the US may agree to pay more for the supply routes and its resumption might bring us the Chicago invitation, it will only be a temporary respite, papering over the symptoms while leaving the ailment unattended. In other words, the absence of trust and lack of understanding on issues of fundamental importance to Pakistan has become a festering wound that will continue to bleed. While improving ties with India has been welcomed by stakeholders in Pakistan, it is long-term US objectives in Afghanistan that raise questions in Pakistan.
Of course, Pakistan’s primary interest should be in ensuring a full and orderly withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan. However, while the Strategic Partnership Agreement signed by Presidents Hamid Karzai and Barack Obama on May 1 lacks specifics, it does confirm US intentions to remain involved in the country far beyond 2014 with access to bases under the cover of “joint facilities”. The US/Nato indefinite presence will not only cause concern to Pakistan but to China, Iran and Russia as well. In such a situation, it is incumbent on us to work with our neighbours and other interested parties to help evolve an intra-Afghan political settlement that can facilitate the complete withdrawal of all foreign forces. Therein lies a genuine prospect of peace in Afghanistan and the region.
Published in The Express Tribune, May 16th, 2012.
COMMENTS (17)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
@ijazmir
Feature of Afghanistan is Federation with Pakistan. Time will tell who is right.
I can't read the 'Feature' but I have read the past. In the past, Pakistnis never ruled over Afghanistan. But, Afghans have often ruled over Pakistan.
Remember the Ghaznavis, Ghoris and Mughals?
@ijazmir: Pakistan is too small to wish away India or get rid of it. So better accept its power, prestige and position in the world. India was never the architecty of bangladesh. It was the west pakistanis dominant arrogancve and looting of east pakistans resources that created Bangladesh. If Taliban will be the eventual rulers in pakistan, then the so called "federation" will be the controlled by afganistan with the dissapearance of Pakistan.
Other alternative is that dissatisfied pakistanis( and currently almost 70% of pakistanis are totally dissatisfied) seek a federation with India. Punjab can become the 28th state of India, Sindh can merge with vibrant Gujrat.. Balochistan can merge with Iran, and the North west with Afganistan. AJK will surrender to Jammu and Kashmir. Two Nation theory will be proven partially right in the sense that it will become a 4 nation theory. India, Iran and Afganistan and Bangladesh.
I do not agree with the writer. 55% population of Afghanistan is Pashto speaking.USA and NATO has to leave. The only trouble maker on western boarder is India flexing its muscles. increasing its influence in Afghanistan, helping dissatisfied Pakistanis with arms and money to stair trouble and keep pk army busy.Don't for get what they did in East Pakistan. My point is to get rid of Indian first. Taliban are the virtual ruler at the end. Feature of Afghanistan is Federation with Pakistan. Time will tell who is right.
America and NATO should maintain 20000 strong force in Afhanistan to Disrupt, Dismantle and Destroy any threat emanating from the region not only Afghanistan. I disagree with Author that China and Russia have any problem with that. China might also look to US for intelligence support incase of Muslim Uigurs uprising or terror activities occurring in China.
Russia and China will support NATO forces remaining in Afghanistan after 2014. Do not spread lies.
Russia recently requested NATO to make plans for Afghanistan after 2014 and even urged NATO to not start withdrawal before 2013. China will never want a neighbour controlled by Jihadis considering the trouble it is having from Jihadis in its own Territory.
Even more informed Pakistan support NATO staying in Afghanistan after 2014. Your statement is very weird.
@Abdul Jabbar: After 9/11, when US A and Pak were negotiating for the strategy to be adopted in Afghanistan for flushing out Talibans, Pakistan insisted that she be allowed to take out 5000 pakistani fighters(in fact army men) from Afghanistan. On paper the number was 5000, actually, what it was is anybody's guess. There is no surety that Pakistan would not repeat the act and send its soldiers(in whatever garb) to again help Taliban takeover. Do not ignore the strategic depth. The problem is when mirror is shown to people like you, either you run away, break the mirror or break the head of the person who put mirror in front of you. BUT at any cost you avoid looking at your image in the mirror.
The differences will never be bridged until Pakistanis pay their taxes, live within their means and develop true independence. A rentier state which is aid dependent will not earn respect. Ongoing dichotomy between public statements and actions and more important between private commitment and public statements on various aspects of foreign policy further create trust deficit. Until these behavior changes occur, Pakistan will not get the respect in the comity of nations including from US that you desire it to get.
" A balanced piece with sensible suggestion. As for Mr. Ashwinn, how long will people like him continue to cover themselves in the Gandhian garb of non-violence while interfering in the internal affairs of the neighboring countries. If he has any doubts on how his "peace loving" country is viewed in the region, I suggest that he visit Nepal, Sri Lanka or even Bangladesh. That will provide him with a reality check!"
@Abdul Jabbar: What about the haqqani network honey? " oh no they freedom fighters trying to free their country , but here is the catch they are hiding in Pakistani territory, guess what pal army shall not fight their Islamic brothers but will 2 their friends , in this case USA "
@Abdul Jabbar: Pakistan has proxies in Afghanistan, Kashmir, Kargil. Pakistani regulars can be controlled. Proxies are mercenaries and they will not hesitate to behead the master that pays them.
@Sanjay: Wake up and smell the coffee: Pakistan has no forces in Afghanistan.
@Meekal Ahmed: being an economist you should know that footing a $5-6 billion yearly bill for Afghan security is going to be no mean feat and ADMIT IT, is unsustainable in the long run, esp. considering the state of the world economy. THE SOLUTION IS POLITICAL.SO START TALKING before rushing for the exits. END OF STORY.
I agree with you, Sir, the absence of trust is a yawing gap.
But I am a little perplexed at you concluding sentence. You want the withdrawal of ALL troops? Isn't that what the American's did before? Just pack up and leave?
What followed I am sure you know better than I.
Tariq Fatemi's views are typical of Pakistani officials living in denial. While we claim to be allies of the US/NATO, we have continued to provide safe harbor to Haqqani network and other militants who are killing ISAF troops. We continue to claim that this is in our national interest.
That may well be, but if we two-time the US, why are officials like Tariq pretending to be offended by US threats and restrictions on aid? Why are we calling ourselves friends in one breath while condoning attacks on NATO troops. If we believe that support to the Haqqani network is in our national interest, we should say so. The US is also then free to pursue any carrot-and-stick measures that are necessary to protect its national interest.
The trust deficit is only caused by our refusing to label the US-Pak relationship for what it really is. We are not friends or allies - the power/money/ideology balance is too skewed for that to ever be true. We have a mercantile relationship -- US money/arms for NATO supply and limited cooperation. Once we label the relationship correctly, the trust deficit will be moot.
" ... complete withdrawal of all foreign forces" would include withdrawal of Pakistan's too one presumes. Or is that part of "strategic depth"?