Pak-US relations have all along followed a roller coaster profile. Presently, these are enduring a snowballing mistrust. Both sides realize that their bilateral relations as well as associated multilateral interactions are mutually beneficial. It is in this backdrop that droves of American visitors keep landing in Islamabad. When some of them go back and testify before congressional committees, their perception of the problems being faced by Pakistan is remarkably accurate. They virtually sound as if they were hired lobbyists for Pakistan.
Despite such wonderful clarity on the issues of vital concern to Pakistan, the solutions that emerge are often hopeless and hence disappointing. Onus surely rests on American policy making process, as indeed on its statesmanship that readily get swayed by the bureaucratic interpretations of otherwise clear cut issues. Despite high sounding words like strategic partnership and strategic dialogue, etc. bilateral relations are mired in a cumulative trust deficit, and are unable to go beyond the lowly orbits of routine and tactical matters. Rhetoric exists, the substance is missing. While American policy makers are often repeating the rote script that they made a grave mistake to abandon Pakistan in the eighties, and that such mistake would not be repeated, a common Pakistani feels that US has already abandoned Pakistan amidst multidimensional crises of grave dimensions. In Pakistan, there is a growing perception that its overly simplistic and symbiotic association with America’s GWOT/OCO related objectives is not compatible with its medium to long-term national security concerns, and thus is not sustainable. In this context, difference of acuity on some of the vital issues is precariously high. For example, Drones stand thoroughly discredited as a military tool against the extremists; American ownership of these vehicles carries a phenomenal negative political baggage. From operational utility stand point, usage of such aerial vehicles is proving counterproductive. Ratio of deaths of militants and innocents is around 1:10. Such human tragedy cannot be pushed under the carpet in the garb of innocent looking terminologies like collateral damage. Public opinion in Pakistan is vehemently hostile towards usage of drones. Indian influence gathering in Afghanistan is another irritant. India has been covertly trying, albeit with American blessing, for influence paddling in Afghanistan. As a spin off, India has already acquired the capability to carry out effective covert subversive operations in Pakistani areas adjoining Afghanistan. Apparently Americans seem to be grooming India, as a part of a contingency plan, to take its role as proxy occupier of Afghanistan as and when its own stay becomes untenable. Proliferation of Indian influence is of strategic dimension that could pose a two-front dilemma for Pakistan. America’s role of a mere bystander in the context of clearly visible Indian splurge for destabilizing Pakistan by supporting the extremist fighters in cash and kind, especially via Afghanistan, is rather damaging in the context of enduring cooperation between Pakistan and America. Moreover, America is not doing enough to influence India with respect to resolution of vital issues. Despite President Obama’s campaign days’ promise, Kashmir issue continue to be dormant; and another related issue of water diversion from rivers flowing in to Pakistan through Kashmir have acquired serious dimension. On the issue of dynamics of regional terrorism, America is overly tilted towards Indian point of view. Indian stance that Pakistan should ensure that Mumbai like incidents do not recur is absurd; yet Robert Gates fell in Indian trap during his recent visit to the region. He almost delivered a war ultimatum to Pakistan on Indian behalf. Fissile material management is another issue where America has abandoned Pakistan. Any fissile material regime without taking into account the existing stockpiles of fissile material puts Pakistan at an inherent and perpetual unfavourable position viz a viz India on two counts. Firstly, being a relatively late starter of nuclear programme, Pakistan’s stock of fissile material is much smaller than India’s. Secondly, as a result of nuclear deal with USA (Agreement 123), India has eight reactors outside IAEA safeguards, capable of producing sufficient fissile material to produce over 100 nuclear warheads per year. Hence, any arbitrary cut off date to stop the production of fissile material without addressing these inadequacies would put Pakistan at a grave security risk in the context of its maintaining a minimum credible deterrence. Another event that has aroused anti America sentiment is America’s fondness for micro managing the internal affairs of Pakistan. Kerry-Lugar-Berman Act could have accrued the Americans a lot of goodwill provided it was not torpedoed by intrusive stipulations. Pakistani nation is accustomed to the strings attached to American aid bills like Glenn, Symington, Pressler and Brown amendments. However, no one expected that Platt class restrictions would be imposed. Some of the terms are so intrusive that even Pakistan’s city or district governments are not used to this type of invasive micro management. Kerry-Lugar document indeed shocked the people of Pakistan, because despite enormous economic hardships suffered by the nation, much awaited legislation had brought only peanuts of an aid, along with a string of humiliating conditionalities. It brought discontent to the armed forces for the reason that despite public and private praise for professional excellence in their role in combating terrorism, Kerry-Lugar legislation, while dealing with civil sector aid had incorporated uncalled for belittling comments towards the armed forces. This fiasco created frustration at a number of places in America as well. Government and congress were let down because they expected that the bill will accrue laurels. To their perception, it was a document, par excellence, for development of long term partnership with Pakistan. One can observe a clearly discernable incremental approach by the Americans to tighten the screws around already suffocating strategic straitjacket imposed on Pakistan. They are applying all sorts of arm twisting methods to have their way; pending the payment of arrears of Coalition Support Fund is just one example. Such actions are further weakening the people level good will towards America. People of Pakistan, today stand emotionally detached from the American interpretation of terrorism, its causes, origin and the methodology to combat it. If one raises two cardinal queries regarding the Overseas Counterinsurgency Operations (OCO) and war on terrorism in the context of our region i.e. which is the country that is putting in maximum resource effort and which is the country helping the sustenance of extremist fighters economically; ironically, unanimous answer to both these queries would be, ‘of course United States of America is performing both feats simultaneously.’ This proverbial burning of candle at both ends is the fundamental fault line undermining the on-going operations. The other one is a state of deliberate ambiguity in the mission statement. These contradictions are not letting the bigger picture take a recognisable format. Carrying on an insurgency is a resource intensive activity. Any such operation would soon lose its steam if finances and logistics are cut off. Extremists are thriving financially as US dollars are reaching them indirectly, though continuously, through security companies engaged for protecting American logistics convoys moving in Afghanistan. Taliban provide protective escort to American conveys through their respective area of responsibility, in exchange for protection fee ranging between 10-20% of the cost of protected consignment. This is further supplemented by percentage based extortions on drug and timber trades. Put together, booty makes a decent percentage of what Pakistan is getting through embarrassing Kerry-Lugar arrangement! Pakistani nation has evolved remarkable consensus on two cardinal aspects of this war. Firstly, the extremists must be eliminated through a composite means, of which application of military instrument is just one small aspect. Secondly, this war is not of our making and it’s blossoming within Pakistani territories is an outcome of faulty operational strategy, adopted by occupation forces in Afghanistan, in pursuit to its overseas counter insurgency operations. Pakistan is indeed paying a prohibitive price due to its association with the faulty COIN strategy that Americans have been executing in Afghanistan. In the context of operation Rah-i-Nijat, and operation Mushtarik, some of the vital border check-posts on Afghan side, adjoining the operational areas, were abandoned by NATO-led security forces, prior to commencement of these operations. ISAF/NATO operations are generally focused at causing a mass emigration of extremist elements to Pakistan than striving to eliminate them. Blanket attribution of all acts of terrorism to Al-Qaeda or Taliban is no longer tenable. Multitudes of state and non-state actors have entered the arena of extremism and terrorism working often cross-purposes to each other. Regional and extra regional intelligence agencies are muddying the water by focusing on destabilizing Pakistan. While all events are being merrily attributed to Al-Qaeda and Taliban; other players are having a fieled day. Pakistan squeezing is no longer justifiable, as armed forces of Pakistan have done a wonderful job in Swat, Malakand and are now replicating the excellent performance in South Waziristan, Bajaur and other areas. Recent capture of Damadola in Bajaur agency after killing over 2000 militants shows the resolve of Pakistan’s armed forces, as indeed the nations, to take on the extremists head on. Sustained economic revival of our economy is dependent on US and European market access to our select textile products on zero tariff basis. Nothing concrete is forthcoming on this. Power shortage is another acute problem that Americans could help to resolve. Facilitation for setting up of nuclear power plants, under IAEA safeguards, is an off the shelf solution; which is being foot dragged by America. A lot remains to be done, on non-military fronts, for sustainable eradication of extremism. Much awaited ‘Promised Wonderland’ in the form of ROZs in our tribal belt is not yet in sight. An alternative education plan as a substitute to religious seminaries is also equally evasive. Pakistan bashing would not bring any dividends; it will only curtail American leverage. Allies must work in an atmosphere of trust and harmony for a win-win finale. If corrective actions are not taken, anti-America sentiment would continue to rise exponentially. Americans need to be responsive towards the sensitivities of Pakistan and carry it along as a trusted ally. Pakistan alone cannot carry on chasing the mirage, indefinitely. Henry Kissinger once observed that in this world it is often dangerous to be an enemy of the United States, but to be a friend is fatal; or words to that effect. An all out effort should be made by the two sides to prevent these relations from becoming yet another living example of Kissinger’s prophetic utterance about friends of America.
Despite such wonderful clarity on the issues of vital concern to Pakistan, the solutions that emerge are often hopeless and hence disappointing. Onus surely rests on American policy making process, as indeed on its statesmanship that readily get swayed by the bureaucratic interpretations of otherwise clear cut issues. Despite high sounding words like strategic partnership and strategic dialogue, etc. bilateral relations are mired in a cumulative trust deficit, and are unable to go beyond the lowly orbits of routine and tactical matters. Rhetoric exists, the substance is missing. While American policy makers are often repeating the rote script that they made a grave mistake to abandon Pakistan in the eighties, and that such mistake would not be repeated, a common Pakistani feels that US has already abandoned Pakistan amidst multidimensional crises of grave dimensions. In Pakistan, there is a growing perception that its overly simplistic and symbiotic association with America’s GWOT/OCO related objectives is not compatible with its medium to long-term national security concerns, and thus is not sustainable. In this context, difference of acuity on some of the vital issues is precariously high. For example, Drones stand thoroughly discredited as a military tool against the extremists; American ownership of these vehicles carries a phenomenal negative political baggage. From operational utility stand point, usage of such aerial vehicles is proving counterproductive. Ratio of deaths of militants and innocents is around 1:10. Such human tragedy cannot be pushed under the carpet in the garb of innocent looking terminologies like collateral damage. Public opinion in Pakistan is vehemently hostile towards usage of drones. Indian influence gathering in Afghanistan is another irritant. India has been covertly trying, albeit with American blessing, for influence paddling in Afghanistan. As a spin off, India has already acquired the capability to carry out effective covert subversive operations in Pakistani areas adjoining Afghanistan. Apparently Americans seem to be grooming India, as a part of a contingency plan, to take its role as proxy occupier of Afghanistan as and when its own stay becomes untenable. Proliferation of Indian influence is of strategic dimension that could pose a two-front dilemma for Pakistan. America’s role of a mere bystander in the context of clearly visible Indian splurge for destabilizing Pakistan by supporting the extremist fighters in cash and kind, especially via Afghanistan, is rather damaging in the context of enduring cooperation between Pakistan and America. Moreover, America is not doing enough to influence India with respect to resolution of vital issues. Despite President Obama’s campaign days’ promise, Kashmir issue continue to be dormant; and another related issue of water diversion from rivers flowing in to Pakistan through Kashmir have acquired serious dimension. On the issue of dynamics of regional terrorism, America is overly tilted towards Indian point of view. Indian stance that Pakistan should ensure that Mumbai like incidents do not recur is absurd; yet Robert Gates fell in Indian trap during his recent visit to the region. He almost delivered a war ultimatum to Pakistan on Indian behalf. Fissile material management is another issue where America has abandoned Pakistan. Any fissile material regime without taking into account the existing stockpiles of fissile material puts Pakistan at an inherent and perpetual unfavourable position viz a viz India on two counts. Firstly, being a relatively late starter of nuclear programme, Pakistan’s stock of fissile material is much smaller than India’s. Secondly, as a result of nuclear deal with USA (Agreement 123), India has eight reactors outside IAEA safeguards, capable of producing sufficient fissile material to produce over 100 nuclear warheads per year. Hence, any arbitrary cut off date to stop the production of fissile material without addressing these inadequacies would put Pakistan at a grave security risk in the context of its maintaining a minimum credible deterrence. Another event that has aroused anti America sentiment is America’s fondness for micro managing the internal affairs of Pakistan. Kerry-Lugar-Berman Act could have accrued the Americans a lot of goodwill provided it was not torpedoed by intrusive stipulations. Pakistani nation is accustomed to the strings attached to American aid bills like Glenn, Symington, Pressler and Brown amendments. However, no one expected that Platt class restrictions would be imposed. Some of the terms are so intrusive that even Pakistan’s city or district governments are not used to this type of invasive micro management. Kerry-Lugar document indeed shocked the people of Pakistan, because despite enormous economic hardships suffered by the nation, much awaited legislation had brought only peanuts of an aid, along with a string of humiliating conditionalities. It brought discontent to the armed forces for the reason that despite public and private praise for professional excellence in their role in combating terrorism, Kerry-Lugar legislation, while dealing with civil sector aid had incorporated uncalled for belittling comments towards the armed forces. This fiasco created frustration at a number of places in America as well. Government and congress were let down because they expected that the bill will accrue laurels. To their perception, it was a document, par excellence, for development of long term partnership with Pakistan. One can observe a clearly discernable incremental approach by the Americans to tighten the screws around already suffocating strategic straitjacket imposed on Pakistan. They are applying all sorts of arm twisting methods to have their way; pending the payment of arrears of Coalition Support Fund is just one example. Such actions are further weakening the people level good will towards America. People of Pakistan, today stand emotionally detached from the American interpretation of terrorism, its causes, origin and the methodology to combat it. If one raises two cardinal queries regarding the Overseas Counterinsurgency Operations (OCO) and war on terrorism in the context of our region i.e. which is the country that is putting in maximum resource effort and which is the country helping the sustenance of extremist fighters economically; ironically, unanimous answer to both these queries would be, ‘of course United States of America is performing both feats simultaneously.’ This proverbial burning of candle at both ends is the fundamental fault line undermining the on-going operations. The other one is a state of deliberate ambiguity in the mission statement. These contradictions are not letting the bigger picture take a recognisable format. Carrying on an insurgency is a resource intensive activity. Any such operation would soon lose its steam if finances and logistics are cut off. Extremists are thriving financially as US dollars are reaching them indirectly, though continuously, through security companies engaged for protecting American logistics convoys moving in Afghanistan. Taliban provide protective escort to American conveys through their respective area of responsibility, in exchange for protection fee ranging between 10-20% of the cost of protected consignment. This is further supplemented by percentage based extortions on drug and timber trades. Put together, booty makes a decent percentage of what Pakistan is getting through embarrassing Kerry-Lugar arrangement! Pakistani nation has evolved remarkable consensus on two cardinal aspects of this war. Firstly, the extremists must be eliminated through a composite means, of which application of military instrument is just one small aspect. Secondly, this war is not of our making and it’s blossoming within Pakistani territories is an outcome of faulty operational strategy, adopted by occupation forces in Afghanistan, in pursuit to its overseas counter insurgency operations. Pakistan is indeed paying a prohibitive price due to its association with the faulty COIN strategy that Americans have been executing in Afghanistan. In the context of operation Rah-i-Nijat, and operation Mushtarik, some of the vital border check-posts on Afghan side, adjoining the operational areas, were abandoned by NATO-led security forces, prior to commencement of these operations. ISAF/NATO operations are generally focused at causing a mass emigration of extremist elements to Pakistan than striving to eliminate them. Blanket attribution of all acts of terrorism to Al-Qaeda or Taliban is no longer tenable. Multitudes of state and non-state actors have entered the arena of extremism and terrorism working often cross-purposes to each other. Regional and extra regional intelligence agencies are muddying the water by focusing on destabilizing Pakistan. While all events are being merrily attributed to Al-Qaeda and Taliban; other players are having a fieled day. Pakistan squeezing is no longer justifiable, as armed forces of Pakistan have done a wonderful job in Swat, Malakand and are now replicating the excellent performance in South Waziristan, Bajaur and other areas. Recent capture of Damadola in Bajaur agency after killing over 2000 militants shows the resolve of Pakistan’s armed forces, as indeed the nations, to take on the extremists head on. Sustained economic revival of our economy is dependent on US and European market access to our select textile products on zero tariff basis. Nothing concrete is forthcoming on this. Power shortage is another acute problem that Americans could help to resolve. Facilitation for setting up of nuclear power plants, under IAEA safeguards, is an off the shelf solution; which is being foot dragged by America. A lot remains to be done, on non-military fronts, for sustainable eradication of extremism. Much awaited ‘Promised Wonderland’ in the form of ROZs in our tribal belt is not yet in sight. An alternative education plan as a substitute to religious seminaries is also equally evasive. Pakistan bashing would not bring any dividends; it will only curtail American leverage. Allies must work in an atmosphere of trust and harmony for a win-win finale. If corrective actions are not taken, anti-America sentiment would continue to rise exponentially. Americans need to be responsive towards the sensitivities of Pakistan and carry it along as a trusted ally. Pakistan alone cannot carry on chasing the mirage, indefinitely. Henry Kissinger once observed that in this world it is often dangerous to be an enemy of the United States, but to be a friend is fatal; or words to that effect. An all out effort should be made by the two sides to prevent these relations from becoming yet another living example of Kissinger’s prophetic utterance about friends of America.
Comments
Post a Comment