Defining moment in Pak-US relations (My article published in THE NEWS on 24 Mar 2012)

Since Pakistan’s inception, military establishment has been playing a deciding role in the formulation of our foreign policy and strategic options vis-à-vis USA. After 9/11, the strategy, which we followed till recently, was formulated by a military dictator, under duress and, probably, motivated by self-interest. It was bound to failure as it over-looked the divergence of interests of the two countries in the region and the logical result was the disaster, as manifested in 2^nd May 2011 and Salala Check-Post incidents. Fortunately, as a welcome change, this time, the Parliamentary Committee for National Security has deliberated at length and presented proposals defining the contours and parameters of our future relations with USA and these are presently under discussion in the Parliament. While, I am sure, our worthy parliamentarians would come out with viable solutions, in-keeping with our national aspirations, as well as the ground realities, they must remain cognizant of a few underlying factors.

First and foremost, the parliamentarians must clearly understand the dynamics of the threats faced by Pakistan, both internal and external, our capability to counter these threats and implications, thereof, in the shaped environment, whereby, Pakistan, today, is isolated and seen as a threat to world peace. INTERNALLY, IN MY VIEW, PAKISTAN, LIKE A HIGH VELOCITY MISSILE PRIMED FOR SELF-DESTRUCTION, IS HEADING FOR A STRATEGIC DISASTER IN DIFFERENT SPHERES - POLITICAL, ECONOMIC, INSTITUTIONAL – AND UNLESS CHANGE FOR THE BETTERMENT IS BROUGHT FROM WITHIN, IT IS LIKELY TO EXPLODE. The prevailing and developing regional scenarios present many opportunities for Pakistan and the opposition must not try to play to the gallery and resort to point scoring on this important issue of our national interest.

Secondly, it’s a fact that our leaders have been exploiting our negative potential (potential of destabilization) for quite some time for pursuing personal agendas and the world at large is now not willing to give further concessions on this account. Our positive potentials because of our geo-strategic location and capacity to influence events in Afghanistan give us a lot of leverage to negotiate with USA, which must be used for the benefit of the masses.  Thirdly, in my view, there is no doubt that owing to divergence of interests, both USA and Pakistan have been playing double games with each other, however, neither has benefited from the strategy followed hitherto. There is, thus, a need to revisit these strategies by both and bring in transparency in their relationship. Fourthly, we must keep in mind that the US leadership finds a commonality of interests with India for pursuance of their long term objectives in the region and, thus, have formed a Nexus with them. The strategy we now formulate must aim at tackling this nexus and minimizing its negative impact on Pakistan. Fifthly, we must learn from the dismemberment of erstwhile USSR that use of Low Intensity Conflict as an instrument is the best strategy to subdue a nuclear state. Our negative internal dynamics which lent us extremely vulnerable to this kind of warfare and the fact that our neighbour in the East is inclined to pursue an indirect approach to convert Pakistan into a pliant state, countering such pursuits should remain one of the prime objectives of our foreign policy vis-à-vis USA for which we may have to compromise on certain issues. And lastly, notwithstanding commitments by the US leadership that their forces would be withdrawn from Afghanistan by 2014, they are likely to maintain their presence in the country and, as such, require a corridor or a supply line via Pakistan to support their bases. THEREFORE, OUR NEW STRATEGY VIS-À-VIS USA MUST TAKE INTO COGNIZANCE THE IMPLICATIONS OF LONG-TERM USA’S PRESENCE IN THE REGION.

While the PCNS has deliberately covered most of the aspects that impact Pak-US relations and forwarded viable proposals, somehow, the loop-holes left in some of the proposed recommendations and absence of a clear-cut response to breaches by USA, give the impression that these have been prepared with USA’s understanding, that already a deal has been struck with the US authorities as to which of these would be implemented and that the whole exercise is for public consumption. This is where the opposition can play an effective role by ensuring that the final recommendations are doable, put in black and white with no ambiguity on the response to any future breaches of accepted clauses and  a few also need rethinking and inclusion;

(1) When we seek transparency in presence of foreign spies, we indirectly admit that they would be acceptable if the conditions are met – a breach of our sovereignty. Why must we permit foreign spies?

(2) Similarly, the proposal that the use of bases or airspace by foreign forces would be permitted after parliament’s approval, indirectly indicates the possibility for providing such bases to USA in future, for which clear-cut terms and conditions should be defined.

(3) While proposal to levy taxes on US supplies is logical, the amount we are likely to fetch (approximately US$1million a day, as reported in the press) is peanuts as compared to what the Americans are spending for supporting their forces in Afghanistan. We need to get the right price for our co-operation, if we decide so open the NATO supplies. Let not the individuals be benefited as hitherto.

(4) WHILE DRONE ATTACKS DO IMPINGE ON OUR SOVEREIGNTY, THE PAKISTANI OR FOREIGN MILITANTS WHO GO ACROSS INTO AFGHANISTAN AND HIT US/NATO/AFGHAN FORCES ALSO BREACH THEIR SOVEREIGNTY. IF PAKISTAN CANNOT STOP THESE MILITANTS FROM GOING ACROSS WHO, NATURALLY, DO NOT RECOGNIZE ANY BORDERS, HOW CAN IT JUSTIFY ITS STANCE OF CONDEMNING DRONE ATTACKS ACROSS THIS SIDE OF THE BORDER? THIS INTRICACY HAS TO BE RESOLVED FOR A VIABLE SOLUTION TO THE ISSUE.

(5) USA is unlikely to accept the proposal of an India like civil nuclear deal with Pakistan. Instead, we should demand Pakistan’s recognition as a nuclear state with the right to seek similar deals with other nuclear powers.

(6) Surprisingly, there is no mention of what role USA should play in solving Kashmir dispute, Pakistan’s role in the future dispensation in Afghanistan and interference in Balochistan. These need to be incorporated.    

Hopefully, with the loop-holes in the proposed recommendations plugged, we are likely to formulate a viable strategy vis-à-vis USA which is based on realism, but reflective of our public sentiment, and in keeping with our national interests.