25.05.2013 Shared goals: Ties with China
THREE points — energy, Afghanistan and counter-terrorism — stand out among the number of issues on which Pakistan and China reached understanding during Prime Minister Li Keqiang’s two-day visit. Quite understandably, the incoming prime minister, Nawaz Sharif, laid stress on seeking Chinese help in resolving Pakistan’s serious energy crisis when he met Mr Li on Thursday. With parts of the country denied power for as long as 19 hours, Pakistan’s energy crisis needs to be tackled on an emergency basis.Mr Li, of course, promised help in conventional, renewable and civilian nuclear power technology. But basically it is Pakistan’s problem. While we cannot review the entire gamut of Pakistan’s energy problem here, it goes without saying that we have thoroughly bungled the energy sector and are paying the price for it. The PML-N government, thus, has to draw up a comprehensive programme for self-sufficiency in energy, because China can help only up to a point.
In Mr Li’s visit to South Asia — his first tour abroad since the transfer of power in Beijing — China observers can detect many messages. With its economic boom and rising political clout, China has pursued towards South Asia a policy which blends economic considerations with restraint in dealing with its main Asian rival, India. The circumspection shown by China during the recent stand-off in the Ladakh region underlines Beijing’s resolve to not up the ante in a region that is already tense. At the same time, while going for increased trade relations with India, successive Chinese governments have taken pains to emphasise that Beijing’s relations with New Delhi are not at Islamabad’s expense. In fact, as the joint statement averred, strengthening the “strategic partnership” was the two countries’ “shared objective”. The joint statement and Mr Li’s address to the Senate testify to the two countries’ commonality of views on a number of key problems, including security, Afghanistan and what the joint statement called “three evil forces” — terrorism, separatism and extremism.
China is rightly concerned over acts of terrorism by separatist elements in its Xinjiang province bordering Pakistan. Saddled with its own twin problems of terrorism and insurgency, Islamabad has cooperated with Beijing in earnest and denied the use of its soil for terrorism. China appreciates this, and — as the joint statement points out — Beijing “respects” Islamabad’s counter-terrorism strategy: something that Islamabad should welcome, given the criticism of its counter-terrorism policy by some quarters. There is no doubt that strategic ties and friendship between Pakistan and China are in the two countries’ mutual interest.
Realisation on drones: Obama’s speech
IT was a widely anticipated and hyped speech and President Obama did on Thursday say many important things, to his own public and to the wider world, on his administration’s approach to national security issues. For Pakistan, being a frontline state in the fight against terrorism and intrinsically linked to the outcome in Afghanistan post-2014, there were both words of encouragement and concern. The American president acknowledged the “cost to our relationship with Pakistan of the unilateral May 2011 Osama bin Laden raid and admitted that “we are just now beginning to rebuild this important partnership”. Even if the ultimate choice would be no different a second time round, it is at least encouraging to note that the commander in chief of the US is both aware of and understands the ripple effects that his decisions can have on Pakistani state and society — especially since he has the power to greatly destabilise both with ill-advised actions.
However, on his comments about the “Afghan war theatre”, which the US takes to include Pakistan and its tribal areas, the president suggested that it would be business as usual on drone strikes until the end of 2014, the deadline for the handover of Afghan security to Afghan forces and for the withdrawal of most foreign troops. Drone strikes, for all their efficacy as acknowledged by even Pakistani military and civilian leaders, have become a bit like the tail wagging the dog, a tactic that has narrow military dividends but has come at the cost of poisoning the overall Pak-US relationship not least because the unilateral strikes violate the principles of sovereignty. Given President Obama’s resolve to exit the war in Afghanistan and the consensus in US foreign-policy circles that Pakistan is ‘more important’ or the ‘greater concern’ going forward, it is an unhappy realisation that the US still does not have a coherent Pakistan policy. Killing ‘enemies’ on Pakistani soil surely cannot be a meaningful substitute for a deeper engagement with the “more important” country in AfPak.
Proceed with caution: Talks with militants
THE brutal ‘logic’ of the Pakistani Taliban was witnessed once more on Thursday. According to media reports, TTP spokesman Ehsanullah Ehsan, while adopting a wait-and-see stance, did not spurn Nawaz’s Sharif offer of talks, saying that the option of dialogue would be discussed by the militant group’s leadership. But in the same breath, the TTP spokesman claimed responsibility for the bombing which killed at least 12 people — mostly policemen — in Quetta. Ehsan said the law enforcers had been targeted because the Balochistan police had arrested and killed TTP fighters from Swat. Such actions reveal the Taliban’s arrogance and the fact that they want to negotiate with the state from a position of strength. While expressing the desire for dialogue the militants are capable of excessive destruction. The extremists, to put it mildly, can be very slippery, and have no qualms about shedding blood. Hence any effort at negotiations where the militants have the upper hand cannot be very promising. This is a stark fact that Nawaz Sharif should realise, as should Imran Khan, Maulana Fazlur Rahman and Munawar Hasan, who have all supported the idea of talks with the religious extremists.
Indeed the nation is tired of years of deadly militant violence and battle fatigue is affecting all segments of society. Any talks ‘offers’ by the TTP should be thoroughly scrutinised by the state and red lines must be clearly drawn. Peaceful negotiations to end a bloody conflict are always a preferable option to violence. But there must first be an unambiguous willingness on the militants’ side to renounce bloodshed. The incoming government needs to proceed with great caution on this front. The state cannot be browbeaten and cowed into talking to the extremists on their terms and under the shadow of their swords.