The answers to these questions lie in the proclivity of both the sides for grandstanding and posturing mainly to whip up public opinion as well as play a game of needless brinkmanship. Pakistan’s demand for an apology was a fair one. As a long-standing ally, the deaths of its soldiers in US airstrikes in November 2011 was unpalatable for a military embroiled in a difficult war. That said, sections of America’s disparate policy machinery also hold the Pakistani state responsible for the Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan. Did they not know all along that Pakistan was not going to dump some of the Taliban factions even when it pursued al Qaeda?
On the other hand, Pakistan’s abrupt closure of supply lines made little sense in the larger perspective, especially as far as its own national interest was concerned. Rational states anchor their policies in pure self-interest. For nine years, Pakistan had allowed Nato supplies to pass through and halted them in the 10th year when Nato/US troops were planning to start a phased withdrawal from Afghanistan. The war in Afghanistan and its spillover into Pakistan’s border areas have been major sources of instability for Pakistan. The non-transparent and narrow parameters for policy setting have meant that achieving strategic leverage in Afghanistan and countering India’s influence are the two key policy drivers. Whilst these are important considerations, the larger issue of Pakistan’s own survival as a society and state has been missing from the discourse.
The Taliban in Afghanistan have a Pakistani counterpart — the Tehreek-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP). Al Qaeda is weak but has not disappeared and, according to several reports, has found bases even in urban areas within Pakistan. More importantly, the repeat of a 1990s-style Taliban march on Kabul is not likely anymore. So what are the policymakers thinking here? Is there a plan, a strategy of sorts on Afghanistan other than the outdated overarching quest for strategic depth? No one really knows. The contradiction between the officially stated and on-ground positions is also intriguing. On the one hand, we are comfortable with a few factions such as the Haqqani network and on the other we also complain of incursions and sanctuaries across the Durand line.
Most importantly, Afghanistan is not just a land of the Pakhtuns. There are scores of other ethnic groups with different aspirations for the future. What about the growing middle class, youth and civil society in Afghanistan, which seeks stability, and supports a pluralistic governance model? The country and the region have suffered from the imposition of a bigoted version of a so-called Islamic culture in the past. Why should we condemn ourselves to repeat history?
Despite the growing chasm between their respective strategic interests and goals, Pakistan and the US cannot do without each other, at least not until 2014. Much has been said globally on Pakistan’s present or future ‘defeat’ in Afghanistan. The challenge of mending the strained US-Pakistan relations is huge. It is, therefore, time to let diplomacy prevail with a robust set of Track II initiatives, media exchanges and search for alternative solutions, which are independent of military interests on both the sides. Pakistan faces an immense challenge in the wake of US withdrawal and has to tackle the homegrown extremists. It simply cannot delay thinking about these imperatives.
Similarly, the US must not contribute to strengthening the irrational anti-American voices through its aggressive posturing. Instead, it should think of securing regional peace through engagement and not military diktat. The latter is obviously not working in Afghanistan.
Published in The Express Tribune, July 5th, 2012.
COMMENTS (20)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
My take is that the US bargained far better than Pakistan in the negotiations. Just look at the original long list of what Pakistan is supposed to have wanted in order to let the supplies pass and what the Parliament is said to have unamnimously approved. The US allowed the Pakistani establishment to wallow in its assumptions about the super value of its strategic location to the point of neglecting its own super weaknesses particularly the economic dependencies. Gradually Pakistan ended up painting itself in a corner by making Ghairat, Sovereignty, and finally an apology as the primary issue. In the end it got nothing, no $5,000 per container, no assurance on drone strikes, and a very ambiguous "sorry" that applies equally to the two sides. Interesting that the Difa crowd, and the Hafeez Saeeds who errupted in an anti-supply-chain and anti USA chorus at the swing of the music director's baton are deafeningly silent now, and the spokespeople of the establishment are busy claiming victory in defeat.
Well written by Raza Rumi. Stance of Pakistan over Salala Tragedy was abslutey "Fair" and escalate message to NATO such things may ruin to achieve strategical objectives in Afghanistan region.
just the jugglry of words no real information on reopening of nato supply
The USA will do just fine without Pakistan - both now and after 2014 - yeah it will cost more for supplies but in the big picture that's peanuts.
@Chacha Fazalu:
it is not a single case...there has been various such cases, and are part and parcel of the system . as in pakistan, we know how to live with corruption........infact, the rotten apples in our country are being flushed out of the system...are you doing the same in your country?
I usually enjoy Raza Rumi's articles. But here the question posed in the title has not been answered. BlackJack however has answered it succinctly.
@Niaz: There is nothing to worry about Indian army. Their Colonels and Generals are too busy in making money. Here is the latest bribery news. http://www.tribuneindia.com/2012/20120705/main3.htm
In other words , Taliban will cease to be terrorists sooner rather than later. Raza is so conspicuously silent on the reign of Taliban's terror in both Pak and Afghanistan. Rather than suggesting that we should sever our ties with Taliban (US pressure or not) , he is simply beating around the bush , repeating what most of us know already.
Actually, Faraz, the strategic partnership agreement between Afghanistan and Pakistan clearly states that the US will not be building and or holding military bases in Afghanistan.
Totally agree with you assessment, Raza. I think all three sides need to stop posturing and find a diplomatic solution. The Taliban are nobody's friend. They're simply using Afghanistan and Pakistan to wait out the international military presence and will then combine to destroy the fabric of both country's societies when they're no longer facing drones and F-16.
The NATO supply lines were opened NOT because the USA tendered an apology or the drones stopped their attack but because moves were afoot in the Congress to declare the Haqani Network and the Lashkar-e-Taiba as terrorist organizations. The question should have been why did it take the US so long?
It took so long for the NATO supplies to reopen because: 1. Everyone (govt/ army/ armchair analysts/ DeP) thought that the Americans would have no way out but to agree to whatever terms that were set by the Pakistanis. 2. Pakistan got greedy and couldn't prioritize. It wanted an apology, it wanted tons of money, it wanted CSF as per its demands, it wanted an end to drone strikes and a seat at the high table to determine Afghanistan's fate. If they had just held onto an honorable apology and avoided the price-gouging, this would have been over in January. 3. Pakistan believed that it could pressure the Americans through a visible demonstration of the anti-American sentiment in the country, and so havoc, and let slip the dogs of war. Unfortunately, America seems to have permanently given up trying to win the hearts and minds of the peace-loving Pakistani citizens. 4. The so-called apology from Ms. Clinton is actually no different from other expressions of regret that were proferred in the past. Instead of accepting quietly, Pakistan held out and got insulted in Chicago. After that it became difficult for the govt to climb down from its high horse. 5. When it turned out that the Americans weren't going to give in, the govt and army got into a who-blinks-first contest. As such the ISAF commander's visit the day before the GLOCs reopened is rather telling.
@Author! My only question from you is " Have you been to wazirastan, afghanistan or tribal belt in last 4 or 5 year? " If yes then I am very surprised that you would write an article which does not redlect an iota of the ground reality. If no then my humble suggestion is to make a trip if you safely can do so. An other point is that if Pakistan has concerns about Inidan presence on its westren borders, how do you suggest that our military should counter it? In a fragile environment like ours, where our neighbour actively supplies arms and money to terrorists that attack our interests and provoke militancy in Baluchistan how do we approch this? Shouldnt we strive to have concentration of our friendly Pasthuns along the border ? When every country in the region wants a government in Kabul that will be more friendly to them than rest of neighbourhood, how can we stay away from this process?
The US Secretary of State carefully selected her words, wherein she implied that Pakistan Army also contributed to the Salala tragedy. If Pakistan had to finally agree to this US position of being jointly responsible then why all this fracas? No change in transit fees, no respite from drones, no prior approval from Parliamentary Committee. What does it finally bring on the table for Pakistan? Nothing really. Whereas USA/NATO has got everything they wanted. The author could easily change the title of this article to "What did Pakistan get from Nato supplies reopening"
"Rational states anchor their policies in pure self-interest. " I suggest you correct this sentence to read:"Rational states anchor their policies in enlightened self-interest." You can ride rough-shod over others while pursuing "pure" self-interest which they would understandably resist. "Enlightened" self-interest is more understandable by others and so more acceptable. It may mean that one has to sacrifice a little but in the long run you will come out a winner!
It is better to be late than never. Considering the circumstances, the PPP Government should be congratulated for finding a way of the quagmire and protecting the larger interest of the country. Those who oppose the decision are either anti-Pakistan or ignorant of harsh reality of being an international pariah.
Nicely written. The reason it took so long was that our side made the repeated mistake of thinking it was negotiating from strength.
@ author: Excellent! You translated my feelings very well. Thank you.
Forget about Track II diplomacy. US will maintain presence in military bases across Afghanistan. Civil war is inevitable after withdrawal of major US forces, and Pakistan would be globally held responsible or that. I think US bombing in FATA will escalate after 2014 and all aids would cease