As happens in most mature and stable polities with strong institutions, elections are not harbingers of major changes in foreign policy. Nevertheless, it is in Pakistan’s interest to identify the Obama Administration’s likely policy goals in this part of the world and more particularly, where will Pakistan fit in President Obama’s scheme of things?
Some in the US and in Pakistan as well may claim that there is little in common between the two countries and, therefore, confrontation is inevitable. This would, however, be an unfortunate conclusion, particularly with the huge challenges confronting the region, most of which incidentally are in and around Pakistan and none amenable to quick solutions. Failure would not only impact the region, but also leave scars on President Obama’s legacy.
The most urgent is the issue of the 2014 deadline for the departure of US combat troops from Afghanistan. A hasty withdrawal without prior understanding among the parties, within and around Afghanistan, could recreate the mid-1990s scenario. Leaving a residual force of a few thousand would make them easy prey to attacks by extremists. The only option is to engage with the Taliban with seriousness and sincerity that have not been evidenced so far. The US-Taliban dialogue has, in fact, been pursued in fits and starts and without the encouragement and support from the White House that it deserves. Moreover, steps such as branding the Haqqani network as a “terrorist organisation” has not helped, particularly with some Taliban leaders confident that they can “out-wait” the foreign troops.
Pakistan remains a key player in the unfolding events, which makes understanding and cooperation with the US essential, not only for their bilateral ties, but vital for future peace in Afghanistan as well. Given the residue of suspicion and mistrust from the unfortunate slide of the past two years, it will not be easy, especially as Islamabad gears itself for general elections that could be deeply contentious, with some political parties intensifying the anti-US rhetoric.
It is, however, a welcome development that the two have resumed their dialogue on what would need to be done to ensure that Afghanistan does not descend into a state of civil war post-2014. But for even a modicum of understanding to emerge, the US will have to demonstrate greater imagination and initiative to give substance to their ties than has been witnessed so far. Pakistan, too, has to recognise that 2014 will leave none untouched. A ‘helpful’ role in promoting reconciliation in Afghanistan would ensure huge dividends, not only at home but in relations with the US, in addition to opening up new opportunities in Central Asia and Russia.
Iran remains an explosive issue, with Israel and its ‘friends’ in the US watching hawk-like for evidence of any weakening on President Obama’s part. Benjamin Netanyahu may have been chagrined by his ‘favourite’s’ defeat, but this will not have weakened his resolve to pile on pressure on President Obama should he detect any vacillation on Iran. Nevertheless, the US must explore the option of direct negotiations with Iran, whose leadership may engage in rhetoric, but remains committed to realism.
Syria is caught in a vicious civil war that has torn the fabric of the state. It is tempting to see it as another opportunity to promote the West’s much-vaunted regime change philosophy. But President Obama has so far been wary of deeper engagement, preferring once again, to “lead from behind” and it would be advisable to keep to this track.
In his acceptance speech, President Obama urged the Americans to “move with confidence beyond this time of war”. Well, he has the unique opportunity of restoring the US to a position of moral leadership rather than one based on military strength. He could actually become a transformational president in foreign policy, provided he can demonstrate conviction in what he preaches.
Published in The Express Tribune, November 14th, 2012.
COMMENTS (16)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
@gp65: Thank you
@C. Nandkishore: "... makes it venerable to drone attacks ..." "...Unlike 1990s Pakistan is economically much more venerable today." Did you mean vulnerable?
@Jat: Your response to Anjaan was laugh out loud funny. Sorry I can recommend only once.
Mr Ex-Ambassador needs to understand
A. Taliban, as they are, will not be acceptable to significant portions of the Afghan population.
B. None of the neighbours i.e. Iran, Uzbekistan,,Kazakistan and even Higher than mountains friend China, is too fond of Islamic zealots.
C. Pushtuns in power in one area are likely to try and unite with all Pushtuns in the neighbourhood.
D. Pakistan is up against a whole lot of guys, if it persists with its 'strategic depth' policy.
So, Whats wrong America being in Pakistan or Afghanistan. America also protecting Pakistan and Afghanistan from communism onslaught. Let us make the visitor comfortable in our country and do our best to secure best of American technologis, educatonal system, export contracts and invite to do business here openly. Lets seize opportunities America offering to Pakistan.
@Anjaan: "...I am yet to come across one Pakistani expert on foreign and defence policy, who has anything to offer except veiled threats ………. threatening to unleash its limitless ability..."
Anjaan, the author has a very valid reason for this kind of thinking, because according to him Pakistan is safe and it is the whole world that is in danger. Please read on...
Region and President in danger - "Failure would not only impact the region, but also leave scars on President Obama’s legacy."
American troops in danger - "Leaving a residual force of a few thousand would make them easy prey to attacks by extremists."
Afghanistan in danger - "two have resumed their dialogue on what would need to be done to ensure that Afghanistan does not descend into a state of civil war post-2014."
Iran in danger - "Iran remains an explosive issue"
Syria in danger - "Syria is caught in a vicious civil war that has torn the fabric of the state."
India in danger - I am surprised he forgot to mention India this time.
Phew ! Thank God Pakistan is safe...
@Feroz: "There is a limit to how often one can shoot oneself in both the head and the foot."
There is no limit if the person concerned is someone like the author, with his foot firmly planted in his mouth all the time. He is also one of the ring leaders of the "let us suck up to Russia-China" group. Had gone into a shock after the Putin snub, but seems to have found his voice again.
Shallow. "...the only option is to engage the Taliban with seriousness..." "...branding the Haqqani network as a terrorist organization has not helped..." "...Pakistan remains a key player in the unfolding events.." All establishment stuff and far from the truth. What do you think the US has been trying to do with the Haqqanis; it is Pakistan that still wants to muddy the waters unless it is allowed to sit at the high table; Haqqanis are a terrorist network having targeted US and Indian interests in Afghanistan, but enjoy the patronage of Pakistan; Pakistan is important for an orderly withdrawal of US and NATO forces, after which, its relations with the US and its neighbors will depend on how it has contributed to that process and beyond. The US footprint will remain in Afghanistan, with support from parties from the so-called northern network, and without exposure of its troops. Pakistan's dilemma is well put in Ahmed Rashid's latest book "Pakistan on the Brink".
Nevertheless, it is in Pakistan’s interest to identify the Obama Administration’s likely policy goals in this part of the world . After 10 years of fighting the WoT and 4 years under Obama, you still don't know what the goals are???
Your comments on Syria and Iran are indicative of the typical victim and blame mindset that afflicts the Muslim world. In Syria you have a dictator suppressing his own people. It is the Syrians who rose up last year to assert their right to their country. But the dictator resorted to brutality. As a result, the Arab world is pleading the much hated western people for aid, arms and intervention. The calls for regime change are loudest amongst the Arabs, Turks and Syrians.
Iran is a strategic threat with and without nuclear weapons to Pakistan. The logic of geography alone is a factor. But being a "good Muslim" demands complete opposition to the USA and Israel and support to Iran. One irresponsible nuclear power supporting another in quest of the same. Both regrettably are Muslim.
You have failed to highlight the negative role played by Pakistan in Afghanistan since 9/11. Throwing in your lot with the Taliban has already extracted a very heavy price in terms of Pakistani lives lost, approx 40,000. What happens to Afghanistan is a different matter but sufficient thought has not been paid to what will happen in Pakistan. The Taliban regime was recognized only by Pakistan and no other neighbor, therefore the level of enthusiasm to see the return of Taliban can be fairly gauged. There is a limit to how often one can shoot oneself in both the head and the foot.
Enough blood and treasure has been spent. Bring the troops home.
Sometimes being far away makes the picture clearer (hopefully). The bare facts are:
US will get out by 2014. After 2014 it will no longer depend on Pakistan. Pakistan has till 2014 to make a good impression on White House, Capitol and Pentagon till 2014. This one year holds the key for future relations between US and Pakistan. Post 2014 Taliban has to come in the open. It can no longer hide in Pakistan. Which makes it venerable to drone attacks within Afghanistan. Leaving a small force will be helpful to US. It no longer has to have a man to man fights. It will fight the war with drones. Drones will increase. They will belong to the next generation; deadlier. Taliban will not be able to use anything heavier than a machine gun. Because these can be detected and destroyed from air. Like in the 1990s Pakistan cannot help the Taliban because this time the whole world is against Taliban. The geographical location will turn out to be Pakistan's disadvantage. The world will see to it that it will have a government that the world wants. Unlike 1990s Pakistan is economically much more venerable today.In short the dice is loaded against Pakistan. But I may be awfully wrong.
The author is found of creating an image that Pakistan is essential to a Taliban deal which will prevent civil war after the American's depart. Rubbish. You have never been able to put together a legitimate deal with your own Taliban and are afraid to confront the Afghan Taliban who have seized control of a large portion of your own country. You don't have the clout to materially influence the Taliban and the American's have finally figured that out. . The American strategy is straightforward. Keep Islamic militants from becoming a direct threat to American homeland - no more 911's. To that end they are going to leave a small, cost effective, and lethal military footprint designed to make life miserable for militants in both Afghanistan and Pakistan. This footprint will consist primarily of air power and special force units which won't be "exposed" as the author implies. . Will Afghanistan descend into civil war -- yeah - but that's essentially what you have now. . The bottom line is that America isn't going to depend on Pakistan after they depart and baring a major change policy by Pakistan it's likely that your future includes expanded drone strikes, sanctions, and further international isolation.