India and Russia on Friday agreed to intensify their consultations on Afghanistan and evolve a joint strategy to meet the challenges posed by terrorism in their proximate neighbourhoods. Both sides signed pacts in defence and civil nuclear energy spheres worth over $10 billion.
Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, who held detailed discussions on regional issues with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, shared New Delhi’s concerns about terrorism emanating from Pakistan and Afghanistan. However, there is a new development, and despite concluding agreements worth billions of dollars Prime Minister Vladimir Putin while referring to efforts of Pakistan to fight terror said: “Islamabad had in the recent months initiated action against those groups. Let us be realistic. Pakistan has taken action against those outfits in the last few months. We need to support those efforts”. This statement indicates Russia’s desire to improve ties with Pakistan, as in the past Russian leadership has never appreciated Pakistan’s contribution in war on terror. Anyhow, some developments are taking place in the region and beyond, and Pakistan should try to understand them in their true perspective and then formulate its policy. One should examine that when India has strategic partnership with the US, what has prompted it to strengthen strategic partnership with Russia? Reportedly, there are some technicalities in Indo-US nuclear agreement over which there is point of difference that have stalled the progress on Indo-US nuclear deal. And Obama administration is not willing to ignore the nuances of the nuclear deal, as his predecessor president Bush did. Whereas every US administration would pursue its goals of controlling the world and its resources, the ways and means employed to achieve these objectives would be different. For example, Obama administration has curtailed the role of the CIA in the region, which became evident from the differences over appointment of station commander in Afghanistan a few months ago. ABC had reported that the CIA’s influence on the US war effort in Afghanistan is waning, and the power of the Pentagon is growing. As a rule, it was the prerogative of the CIA to pick its chief of station in foreign countries, but in Afghanistan it lost a political battle to the military and the State Department. General McChrystal, commander of US and international forces in Afghanistan, had his own preferred candidate for the job. It would be appropriate to take a look on history of former Soviet Russia’s relations with Pakistan. In 1949, former soviet prime minister Marshal Joseph Stalin was reported to have extended invitation to prime minister Liaquat Ali Khan to visit Moscow through Pakistan’s ambassador in Iran because Pakistan had not established diplomatic relations with the Soviet Union till then. Former USSR must have been annoyed for giving preference to the US over Soviet Russia. However, bureaucracy had maneuvered to get invitation from US President Harry S Truman to prime minister Liaquat Ali Khan to pay official visit to the US in May 1950. It has to be mentioned that the Soviet Union had not used its veto-power when the United Nations passed the resolution on Kashmir giving the people of Kashmir to decide to join India or Pakistan through a plebiscite. And it used veto only after the U-2 incident and also threatened Pakistan of dire consequences. Since Pakistan remained committed to the West to work as bulwark against communism, the USSR developed very close relations with India and signed friendship treaty, which in fact was defence treaty. During the Cold War era when the world stood divided between socialist and capitalist camps, foreign policy of any country was reflective of its internal policies. Theoretically, those countries having pro-people welfare oriented policies were in the socialist camp, and those subscribing to unbridled capitalism were in the western camp. There were also so-called non-aligned countries like India and Pakistan - the former was very close to the Soviet camp and the latter intertwined in defence pacts with the West - and yet both claimed to be part of the Non-Aligned movement (NAM). Barring a few honourable exceptions, Pakistan has not been lucky to have visionary leadership after the said demise of Quaid-i-Azam, and those who had opposed Pakistan in cahoots with bureaucracy - trained to serve the colonists - took decisions that caused Pakistan irreparable loss in the form of breakup of the motherland. Our inept leadership also failed to frame economic policies that could have made Pakistan a self-reliant country. And it was because of dependency syndrome that Pakistan was either forced or coerced to be the camp-follower of the West. It would not be wrong to say that Pakistan was disintegrated because of Pakistan’s alliance with the US and the West. Of course, Soviet Union supported India, which created rebellion in former East Pakistan; trained Mukti Bahini and even crossed into international border to disintegrate Pakistan. According to declassified information published after thirty years, it was shocking to note that the US agreed with the separation of former East Pakistan but did not agree the way it was done. If a country has friends like America, it would not need enemies. Anyhow, Pakistan should try to review its foreign policy in accordance with the guidelines provided in the Constitution. It has to be mentioned that the rift between former Soviet Union and Pakistan developed after U-2 spy plane incident that occurred during the Cold War on May 1, 1960 (during the presidency of Dwight D Eisenhower), which was shot down over the Soviet Union. At first, the United States government denied the plane’s purpose and mission, but was forced to admit its role as a covert surveillance aircraft when the Soviet government produced its remains (largely intact) and surviving pilot, Francis Gary Powers. Anyhow, now the position is that after having given tremendous sacrifices in men and material, first in Afghan war in 1980s and then after joining war on terror, Pakistan is being maligned by the US. At one time, it appreciate Pakistan’s role in war on terror and for decimating the terrorists’ infrastructure and their strongholds, and at another expresses concerns that terrorists may succeed in laying their hands on Pakistan’s nukes. If history is any guide, America cannot be relied up or trusted. Otherwise also, Pakistan should not lay all its eggs in one basket. The threat to Pakistan’s security from India may have been a cogent reason for joining pacts with the West and entering into bilateral agreement with the US, but these proved counter-productive. The people of Pakistan, however, had understood about the meaninglessness of these pacts during two wars with India in 1965 and 1971 when our allies instead of helping Pakistan discontinued not only military but economic aid also. After the end of the Cold War when the US and the West changed their priorities, it was imperative for Pakistan to review its priorities and goals in a drastically changed international landscape, which was not done. It is hoped that Pakistan government would take advantage of the new developments and review its foreign policy.
Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, who held detailed discussions on regional issues with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, shared New Delhi’s concerns about terrorism emanating from Pakistan and Afghanistan. However, there is a new development, and despite concluding agreements worth billions of dollars Prime Minister Vladimir Putin while referring to efforts of Pakistan to fight terror said: “Islamabad had in the recent months initiated action against those groups. Let us be realistic. Pakistan has taken action against those outfits in the last few months. We need to support those efforts”. This statement indicates Russia’s desire to improve ties with Pakistan, as in the past Russian leadership has never appreciated Pakistan’s contribution in war on terror. Anyhow, some developments are taking place in the region and beyond, and Pakistan should try to understand them in their true perspective and then formulate its policy. One should examine that when India has strategic partnership with the US, what has prompted it to strengthen strategic partnership with Russia? Reportedly, there are some technicalities in Indo-US nuclear agreement over which there is point of difference that have stalled the progress on Indo-US nuclear deal. And Obama administration is not willing to ignore the nuances of the nuclear deal, as his predecessor president Bush did. Whereas every US administration would pursue its goals of controlling the world and its resources, the ways and means employed to achieve these objectives would be different. For example, Obama administration has curtailed the role of the CIA in the region, which became evident from the differences over appointment of station commander in Afghanistan a few months ago. ABC had reported that the CIA’s influence on the US war effort in Afghanistan is waning, and the power of the Pentagon is growing. As a rule, it was the prerogative of the CIA to pick its chief of station in foreign countries, but in Afghanistan it lost a political battle to the military and the State Department. General McChrystal, commander of US and international forces in Afghanistan, had his own preferred candidate for the job. It would be appropriate to take a look on history of former Soviet Russia’s relations with Pakistan. In 1949, former soviet prime minister Marshal Joseph Stalin was reported to have extended invitation to prime minister Liaquat Ali Khan to visit Moscow through Pakistan’s ambassador in Iran because Pakistan had not established diplomatic relations with the Soviet Union till then. Former USSR must have been annoyed for giving preference to the US over Soviet Russia. However, bureaucracy had maneuvered to get invitation from US President Harry S Truman to prime minister Liaquat Ali Khan to pay official visit to the US in May 1950. It has to be mentioned that the Soviet Union had not used its veto-power when the United Nations passed the resolution on Kashmir giving the people of Kashmir to decide to join India or Pakistan through a plebiscite. And it used veto only after the U-2 incident and also threatened Pakistan of dire consequences. Since Pakistan remained committed to the West to work as bulwark against communism, the USSR developed very close relations with India and signed friendship treaty, which in fact was defence treaty. During the Cold War era when the world stood divided between socialist and capitalist camps, foreign policy of any country was reflective of its internal policies. Theoretically, those countries having pro-people welfare oriented policies were in the socialist camp, and those subscribing to unbridled capitalism were in the western camp. There were also so-called non-aligned countries like India and Pakistan - the former was very close to the Soviet camp and the latter intertwined in defence pacts with the West - and yet both claimed to be part of the Non-Aligned movement (NAM). Barring a few honourable exceptions, Pakistan has not been lucky to have visionary leadership after the said demise of Quaid-i-Azam, and those who had opposed Pakistan in cahoots with bureaucracy - trained to serve the colonists - took decisions that caused Pakistan irreparable loss in the form of breakup of the motherland. Our inept leadership also failed to frame economic policies that could have made Pakistan a self-reliant country. And it was because of dependency syndrome that Pakistan was either forced or coerced to be the camp-follower of the West. It would not be wrong to say that Pakistan was disintegrated because of Pakistan’s alliance with the US and the West. Of course, Soviet Union supported India, which created rebellion in former East Pakistan; trained Mukti Bahini and even crossed into international border to disintegrate Pakistan. According to declassified information published after thirty years, it was shocking to note that the US agreed with the separation of former East Pakistan but did not agree the way it was done. If a country has friends like America, it would not need enemies. Anyhow, Pakistan should try to review its foreign policy in accordance with the guidelines provided in the Constitution. It has to be mentioned that the rift between former Soviet Union and Pakistan developed after U-2 spy plane incident that occurred during the Cold War on May 1, 1960 (during the presidency of Dwight D Eisenhower), which was shot down over the Soviet Union. At first, the United States government denied the plane’s purpose and mission, but was forced to admit its role as a covert surveillance aircraft when the Soviet government produced its remains (largely intact) and surviving pilot, Francis Gary Powers. Anyhow, now the position is that after having given tremendous sacrifices in men and material, first in Afghan war in 1980s and then after joining war on terror, Pakistan is being maligned by the US. At one time, it appreciate Pakistan’s role in war on terror and for decimating the terrorists’ infrastructure and their strongholds, and at another expresses concerns that terrorists may succeed in laying their hands on Pakistan’s nukes. If history is any guide, America cannot be relied up or trusted. Otherwise also, Pakistan should not lay all its eggs in one basket. The threat to Pakistan’s security from India may have been a cogent reason for joining pacts with the West and entering into bilateral agreement with the US, but these proved counter-productive. The people of Pakistan, however, had understood about the meaninglessness of these pacts during two wars with India in 1965 and 1971 when our allies instead of helping Pakistan discontinued not only military but economic aid also. After the end of the Cold War when the US and the West changed their priorities, it was imperative for Pakistan to review its priorities and goals in a drastically changed international landscape, which was not done. It is hoped that Pakistan government would take advantage of the new developments and review its foreign policy.
Comments
Post a Comment