The train of events set into
motion by the Abbottabad incident on May 2 has brought the relations between
Pakistan-US to an all-time low. While Pakistan's establishment felt betrayed and
humiliated after the American raid, it also came in for strong criticism from
all quarters at the domestic front. Instead of opting for covert negotiations
with the Pakistani authorities, the Obama administration chose to enhance
pressure on Pakistan in a bid to make her comply with ever-increasing US
demands.
All elements of the administration's opinion starting from President Obama to
Chairman Joint Chief of Staff Mike Mullen to the Congressmen made no bones about
their intentions to 'punish' Pakistan with a 'stick and carrot approach.' The
Pakistani establishment, which was already finding it increasingly difficult to
comply with the American diktat, got cornered as internal voices to detach the
country from the America-led war on terror picked up momentum.
The accelerated pace of drone strikes in the tribal areas, bordering Pakistan
and Afghanistan, and the increased emphasis on counter-insurgency operations
away from the deployment of large armies overseas augur ill for the sustainable
future of relations between Washington and Islamabad. Despite fire-fighting
efforts by a plethora of US officials to push the reset button in relations, the
strains have only become clearer by the day.
Though the two resolutions aimed at cutting down US aid to Pakistan have been
defeated in the American Senate, the Obama administration's suspension of $800
million, a third of the $2.7 billion in military aid to Pakistan, only reveals
the widening chasm between the two countries. The US Secretary of State, Hillary
Clinton, has tried to play down the rhetoric accompanying the suspension of
military aid, saying that it should not be construed as 'any change in the US
policy' and that the US would continue to give Islamabad civilian aid passed
under Kerry-Lugar Act.
The Inter-Services of Public Relations (ISPR), in a reaction to the suspension
of military aid, has reiterated the country's commitment to eliminate terrorism
from the country with the use of indigenous resources. It said that this
suspension would not affect the ongoing military operations. What has further
complicated the already fragile relations is an orchestrated media campaign
against Pakistan and its institutions.
The bilateral relations of both Islamabad and Washington now seem to follow a
usual ebb and flow pattern. While Pakistan should not break with the US as it
would be highly inadvisable, it is the right occasion to review the terms of
engagement with the US to make it more equitable. An opportunity is always
inherent in every risk and we must make the best use of it instead of being
cowed down by the incidents. The following points are instructive in this
regard:
Firstly, there is a dire need that the civilian and military leaderships
undertake a dispassionate and exhaustive analysis of the geo-strategic situation
currently obtaining in the domain of Pakistan-US relations. We must not allow
the crises to spiral out of control. In accepting every US demand after 9/11,
the Musharraf regime turned the country into a subservient state. While fighting
terrorism and extremism was in Pakistan's interest, it must not have allowed the
US to dictate terms. Pakistan must not plunge headlong into the North Waziristan
operations under pressure from Washington. If at all any such decision is taken,
it must purely be taken under our national domestic considerations.
Such an appraisal of our priorities and policies must also spell out 'red lines'
for every country to respect and desist from crossing. This must involve the
protection of the country's core interests ie sovereignty, nuclear interests,
and territorial integrity. In his concluding speech at the National Seminar on
De-radicalization in Swat the other day, the Prime Minister talked of the 'red
lines' and asked the 'allies' not to advance their narrow interests at the cost
of Pakistan.
These high-level statements need to be accompanied by comprehensive and
consistent policies and not be a one-time media interaction. Coupled with this
is the need of an articulation of consensus-based and uniform policies by all
streaks of national opinion. It would send a strong message to the international
community and inject substance into Pakistan's position on key policy issues.
Any dichotomy of views between the civilian and military leaderships would
betray signs of weakness.
The policy of putting all eggs in one basket is flawed to the core. Pakistan has
pursued a Washington-centric, uni-focal foreign policy so far. Our relations
with the countries of the Gulf region have weakened over a period of time.
Islamabad should not only repair its relations with these friendly countries but
also find new partners.
However, what Pakistan needs the most is the setting of its own house in order.
Foreign policy, by all intents and purposes, is a reflection and sum total of
domestic policies. If a country is politically and economically strong, it has a
better bargaining position and can sell its viewpoint more effectively. This
calls for crafting of national consensus on key issues of national security and
foreign policy. These measures would enable the country to renegotiate the terms
of engagement with the US. Pakistan's leadership must articulate the national
policy with confidence and optimism. Pakistan has what it takes to be a
respectable country in the comity of nations. What it needs the most is
leadership and good governance to reflect the dynamism of the nation. History
shows that crises bring out the best from states and societies. Let this crisis
serve such a purpose in this case.
By Sahibzada Hussain Mohi-ud-Din Qadri