Nasim Ahmed


There were no surprises in the set of 14 recommendations which the joint session of Parliament adopted last week by consensus to provide a new framework for Pakistan's ties with the US. The guidelines given by the Parliamentary Committee on National Security reflected the mood of the nation.

But it remains a moot point whether the government will be able to act on them in letter and spirit.

The PCNS deliberated long and hard to develop new terms of engagement with the US but, at the end of it all, it struck a compromise of sorts: while trying to capture the national mood heavily weighted in favour of an independent foreign policy, it took care to give the government ample room for manoeuvre in the harsh world of realpolitik.

The guidelines approved by the Pakistan Parliament have quite a wide sweep. While reiterating that the sovereignty of Pakistan shall not be compromised and the relationship with the United States should be based on mutual respect for sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of each other, they lay down that the US footprint in Pakistan must be reviewed, putting an immediate end to drone attacks inside Pakistan and cessation of infiltration into Pakistani territory on any pretext including hot pursuit.

While allowing non-lethal NATO supplies, the recommendations call on Pakistan to seek an unconditional apology from the US for the November 26, 2011, unprovoked attack on the Salala check-post and not allow its air space to be used for transportation of weapons into Afghanistan. In this connection, the Ministry of Defense and the Pakistan Air Force have been asked to formulate new flying rules for areas contiguous to the border.

Another postulate put forward in the PCNS document demands that, contrary to past practice, no verbal agreement regarding national security should be entered into by the government or any department or organisation with any foreign government or authority. Other related points are: no overt or covert operation in Pakistan; no private security companies or operatives to be allowed and no establishment of bases by a foreign power on Pakistani soil.

The new foreign policy framework also lays guidelines for the safety and security of Pakistan's nuclear assets. It says that the US-India civil nuclear agreement has significantly altered the strategic balance in the region and, therefore, Pakistan should seek from the US and others a similar treatment.
It is a comprehensive wish list, and one that calls for a carefully worked out package of diplomatic skill, economic sinew and military strength which Pakistan lacks. We have an extremely fragile and aid-dependent economy on the verge of collapse; our military strength is dependent on foreign supplies and, as numerous instances show, our diplomatic skill is not something to be proud of. Our foreign policy has been in a state of mess for decades now - lacking vision and a sense of direction. Short-term deals, ad hoc decisions and temporary arrangements have been the staples of our foreign policy.

What will change after Parliament's review of the co-ordinates of our foreign policy? To be sure, drone attacks are not going to stop as US officials have made it clear in their numerous statements that this is a matter that concerns their national security. All that will change now is that, perhaps, there will be a little more information sharing on the scope, methodology and frequency of drone attacks. As for not allowing foreign intelligence operatives, it is stating the obvious. Spies are not diplomats. They don't need the host country's permission to operate there. They are shadowy figures who are past-masters in the art of avoiding the security radars of the target countries.

Despite the US State Department spokesperson's latest re-iteration that Washington seeks enduring and strategic ties with Pakistan, the stark reality is that the US is already in a strategic relationship with India, and Pakistan is out of the loop. Washington has also so far not shown any willingness to conclude a civil nuclear deal with Pakistan as it has done with India.

It is clear that Parliament has set a hard, if not an impossible, task to the government which, given its own incompetence and an unfavourable combination of internal and external circumstances, it seems incapable of handling. As it is, the resumption of NATO supplies has drawn a chorus of protests from various quarters. The country's religious parties have openly and loudly criticized Parliament's decision on NATO supplies. The most vociferous in this connection have been the leaders of the Defence of Pakistan Council who have accused the rulers of being slaves of foreign powers and selling national honour and dignity for a pittance.

According to media reports, the religious parties are getting together to work out a strategy to block the NATO supplies, if and when resumed. This is the immediate challenge that the government faces. How it grapples with the gathering storm remains to be seen.

-CuttingEdge