Perhaps, the greatest test of our foreign policy has emerged in the aftermath of a successful visit of the Indian prime minister to Washington, where his past was forgotten by the same country that denied him a visa for more than a decade. The two countries indicated that they may cooperate for stability in Afghanistan, and at the end of Narendra Modi’s visit, a joint US-India statement has even more worrying signals. Both India and the US cited working on “joint and concerted efforts, including the dismantling of safe havens for terrorist and criminal networks, to disrupt all financial and tactical support for networks such as al Qaeda, Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), Jaish-e-Mohammad, the D-Company and the Haqqanis”. The Indian and US authorities also jointly reminded “Pakistan to bring the perpetrators of the November 2008 terrorist attack in Mumbai to justice”. Consequently, the US government made public sanctions against Pakistani militant leaders and two Pakistan-based organisations for their alleged support or linkages with Kashmir jihad groups such as the LeT and the Harkatul Mujahideen.
For decades, we have been banking on the Americans to intervene in the Kashmir issue, a ‘core’ problem as we see it in Indo-Pakistan bilateral relations. We have not been able to succeed in this. In fact, things are turning the other way round. India has been keen for a long time to convince the world, including the US, about Pakistan’s so-called ‘terror problem’. That they do this is not surprising. But the fact that we create a space for this global narrative is far more problematic. Despite years of this building narrative on Pakistan, have we really attempted to address it? The answer is in the negative.
The most recent evidence of our flawed approach to militancy at home can be traced in the Foreign Office’s reaction on October 2. The otherwise sensible spokesperson for the Foreign Office declared that the US decision to impose sanctions was not “binding” on Pakistan. The problem with such an approach is that it undermines the recent policy shifts in fighting anti-Pakistan militants and the huge sacrifices that Pakistanis, including security personnel, have made. More alarmingly, the joint statement issued by India and the US also mentions “dismantling” terrorist safe havens. What does this mean? Rhetoric or even a remote chance that they might get together to act against the ‘threat’ in Pakistan? True, that Pakistan’s nuclear capability and strong defence architecture are likely to prevent such misadventure(s), but that a policy option is emerging should be a wake-up call for the key actors here.
Why are the Kashmir jihad organisations given so much space in the political arena and in the media? Why are important national days marked by rallies by these organisations? In the region, we look more and more isolated. Pakistan entered into a pipeline deal with Iran and faces the prospect of paying penalties if our part of the commitment is not fulfilled. Given the acute energy crisis, our options are limited, but it is unclear if that pipeline will materialise. Often Saudi and American pressures are cited as reasons for our vacillation. But this is not how responsible states function.
The Afghan public opinion is far from favourable when it comes to Pakistan. For some real and some imagined reasons, Pakistan is viewed by many Afghans as the problem. The onus to change this perception is on us. On the one hand, we support the new political deal in Afghanistan and on the other, when Punjabi Taliban say that they will stop fighting us and focus on Afghanistan, we welcome that? Are we not providing an excuse to Afghan intelligence to patronise the TTP?
Handling India has become even more problematic. Prime Minister Modi disappointed many in Pakistan (and even India) by cancelling the August talks between the foreign secretaries. Such display of hardline attitude was not unexpected from a leader who is viewed and wants to act as the strongman in the region. Prime Minister Sharif, in his recent UN address, returned to the ‘plebiscite in Kashmir’ policy, which basically entails a negation of the modest progress that took place in recent years. It may take a long time to rebuild trust and further the trade talks.
The Americans are withdrawing from the region and Afghanistan’s stabilisation is a question mark. Pakistan will suffer if there is instability and violence next door. The prospect of a proxy war with India on Afghan soil is even worse. Pakistan desperately needs energy supplies and more trade in the region to boost its economy. Regional instability will further exacerbate the chances of economic recovery and the bailouts from the West may dwindle with the drawdown in Afghanistan.
Civil-military relations appear to be strained precisely when consensus at home is badly needed. What is certain is that business-as-usual is not going to work. Aside from the military’s overt role, the civilian government appears to be a house divided on foreign policy issues. When multiple principals are engaged in the conduct of foreign policy, the credibility of the country plummets in the international community. The policy elite need to fix the ongoing domestic crisis and respond to a rapidly changing regional situation.
Published in The Express Tribune, October 5th, 2014.
Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.
COMMENTS (27)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
@Madiha Mobin: This is with reference to your statement: "We are stake holders in it as strongly as you are. Why do you expect Pak to bow against injustice?" You base this hypothesis based on your Two-Nation Theory of a Muslim Pakistan and Hindu India. Things have changed since 1947. Today there are three countries born out of British India and the concept for a single country of Pakistan for Muslims of the subcontinent failed with the creation of an independent Bangladesh. Don't forget that India has more Muslims than Pakistan. If the current Pakistan has a stake to determine the future of the Muslims in Kashmir, so too Bangladesh has a stake as it was a party to the 1947 partition of India. The current remnant Pakistan has no say in the affairs of India.Today remnant Pakistan will demand Kashmir and once Kashmir is given to them tomorrow they will demand parts of Uttar Pradesh where there are a sizeable number of Muslims. Do you think remnant Pakistan's demand will ever stop? Never. They see themselves as the protectors of Muslims the world over, when at home they kill each other for differing on Islamic ideologies. Grow up and smell the coffee. Kashmir will always remain Indian and the world supports India on this score, including the Organisation of Islamic Conference.
@ Abyss If i am going to say here something else that will be a useless rhetoric. However, India makes peace with her neighbors other than Pak because there is a will to do so. China is a giant. You cant be at loggerheads with her all the time. Bangladesh, Nepal, Bhutan, Maldives, are no equal to you. Who will bell the cat? rats cant! As far as the will to reconcile with Pak is concerned, its veracity can be well measured by the on going Modi offensive against Pak in each and every speech of his across India. You are obsessed with Pakistan :) Kashmir? We are stake holders in it as strongly as you are. Why do you expect Pak to bow against injustice? Enough said.
@Huma: Every country wants to protect its citizens. Unfortunately, Pakistani govt is more concerned about the bird in the bush than the bird in hand.
If Pakistan does not dismantle the terror outfits on its soil, someone will. Plain and simple.
@Rex Minor: And from your history of comments, I would wonder which "twilight zone" you live in???
I think next level of cooperation on counter terrorism between India and US will be as follows India will give the data for DRONE operation, US will execute the DRONE.
Pakistan will not be able take action against the DRONE as it is US doing and retaliation will be checkmated.
Pakistan is fast running out of options.
Can someone elaborate what the author meant by saying "The prospect of a proxy war with India on Afghan soil is even worse." Does he think next battle ground between India and Paksitan will be Durand Line? How?
@Its (still) Economy Stupid: Thats unfair. Count together how many people came to hear Nawaz Sharief and Shaikh Haseena and then compare with India.
@John F, Melbourne:
The West actually has a biased approach when it comes to decide something between India and Pakistan. As most people there are unaware or pretend being so regarding the mischievous acts of India, they end up blaming Pakistan for every wrong doing in the region. I partially agree to what has been said by you. We should put our own house in order indubitably. However, the way the whole onus for creating disturbance in regional countries is put on our shoulders is highly unjust. India being the biggest country in South Asia can do a lot but she doesnt want to. Its India that has issues with all the neighboring states of the region. It has not only problems with us but with smaller nation states that have borders with her. she has been exporting terror to all these now and at some time in history. Our policies have been India centric and defensive because there has to be a wall of defence against Indian offensive. Is that too much to ask for by a country that has one of the longest border with a much stronger arch-rival that never leaves a chance to tarnish her image? I guess a better knowledge of the region and our history would help the West comprehend the state of affairs here.
@MilesToGo: yes, given that thay have been claiming to the biggest victims of terrorism and that they are completely helpless and therefore they should not be blamed for attacks inside and outside Pakistan.
“joint and concerted efforts, including the dismantling of safe havens for terrorist and criminal networks, to disrupt all financial and tactical support for networks such as al Qaeda, Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), Jaish-e-Mohammad, the D-Company and the Haqqanis” - Why are you worried if the terrorist n/w are getting dismantled??
Realistically, Nothing will happen on Indo-Pak front or on Kashmir front for a 10-20yrs.
Things are just not right to resolve tough issues. At best we can have tense peace (or cold war) brewing for next decade, by which time hopefully Pakistan would've dealt with its inner contradictions and India would've taken care of its growth problems.
Nothing that Pakistan or India can do can change the situation between the countries till both countries are ready to move away from their maximalist positions and accept what is practically workable. I don't think it'll happen in my life time.
So, the best I hope for - There is no war in next 20 yrs, and both countries focus on solving their internal problems in this time.
Two Nation theory: 67 years later 48 people came to hear Pakistani PM Nawaz and 18,048 people came to hear Modi in New York.
A good list of all that is wrong with Pakistan. If Pakistan begins to do something about it, very good. If Pakistan, on the other hand, chooses to dig itself deeper into its hole, that is very good too. To those whom Pakistan loves to hate, both alternatives are very pleasing.
I like reaza Rumi writing; he has built a a small nest for himself in the twilight zone which is not very far from his favourite India!
Rex Minor
But, is anyone listening? Does anyone care?
Sherry Rehman does pretty plausible analysis and also she writes reasonably well, one just wonders why she must use others for publishing her views, is Rumi a pseudonym Sherry Rehman or Raza Rumi is the veil that Sherry Rehman uses.Just wonder.
Generally speaking we need fix our internal problems. Internal affairs preceed external ones, no one likes bad company
The statement of foreign advisor sartaj aziz "the timing of meeting with Huriat leader at pakistan foreign office in india was odd" clearly enunciates that how impuissant civil govt is. And the that "third party" never ever wants to solve the issues just to make sure their rule over mortals.
I really wonder why, when we have such freethinking people like Raza Rumi among us, we refuse to listen to him. Instead we try to kill him, or when we are in the mood to be kind, only find some lame excuses to criticise him.
It is so frustrating! When at last, Oh our Mighty Allah, we will see reason?
Dear Rumi Sahib: The US talk on human rights is hypocrisy. It doesn't see any violations in GAZA or Kashmir but where its interests are threatened, it uses it to create leverage.
Pakistan should welcome that India and USA are willing to dismantle terror groups in Pakistan.
Very well written argument by raza. It is an alarming situation for pakistan that its neighbour country is growing rapidly despite of its internal conflicts. But pakistan has welcomed Modi after he took landsliding victory. Our premier went to his oath taking ceremony despite of severe criticism but the way Mr Modi cancelled foreign seceretary meeting is not a good gesture to build peace between two most populated and poor counties.
Handling India has become even more problematic.....Such display of hardline attitude was not unexpected from a leader who is viewed and wants to act as the strongman in the region.
Just a suggestion .... I would forget about handling a country many times your size economically and far more respected and influential. Little wonder that your PM's old rant about Kashmir at the UN was ignored by one and all. You guys tend to overestimate yourselves and follow the same old failed strategy.
Secondly, Modi has done absolutely nothing to indicate that he wants to be the "strongman" for the region. Even with small neighbors such as Nepal and Bhutan, his message has been about economic cooperation and common roots. You can try and paint him as a "strongman" all you want but no one will buy that - I understand that he is almost as popular with the people of Nepal as he is in India.
This is the problem. Even a supposedly moderate Pakistani tries to parrot the same failed propaganda points and lies underlying the Pakistani narrative. Mr Rumi repeatedly refers to "Kashmir" jihad organizations.
Lashkar-e-Taiba is entirely made of Punjabi cadre. It was no coincidence Ajmal Kasab and his other team members carrying out the Mumbai terrorist attack in 2008 were all Punjabis and not Kashmiris. LeT is neither a Kashmiri terrorist organization nor its terrorist activities limited to Kashmir, but all of India.
Another example is he says there is a perception problem among Afghans about Pakistan. This claim is disingenuous. Afghans know well how much mischief Pakistani deep state has indulged in Afghanistan. There is a reality problem, pretending there is only a "perception" problem doesn't take you anywhere.