Strategic dialogue with US

[Mao Zedong]

Strategic dialogue with US
By Shahid M. Amin (DAWN)

AT the conclusion of the second round of the strategic dialogue between Pakistan and the US, held in Islamabad a few days ago, both sides reiterated their commitment to building a long-term partnership that went beyond cooperation in the war against terror.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said that “remarkable progress” had been made in several sectors by the 13 working groups that have met in Islamabad over the past three months. She announced measures to help Pakistan achieve economic stability and address its energy requirements to promote broad-based and private sector-led economic growth and job creation in Pakistan.

The US will extend support in different sectors including water, energy, health, education and agriculture. Non-military aid to Pakistan had been tripled to $7.5bn during the next five years under the Kerry-Lugar act.

Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi termed the US-Pakistan dialogue as very productive. Both sides clearly seemed satisfied with the outcome of the talks. Ms Clinton also interacted with the media and civil society and answered their questions candidly. This charm offensive has become a part of her diplomatic style in Pakistan.

But she did not offer hope that the US would play a role in nudging India to resolve the Kashmir dispute. About the water disputes with India, she pointed out that a mechanism existed under the Indus Waters Treaty to resolve such disputes. About cooperation in nuclear energy, she referred to the need to satisfy the concerns of the nuclear suppliers group regarding any possible proliferation.

Some analysts were disappointed by the US attitude but in actual fact, it is nothing more than an illusion to expect that the US or anyone else would be willing to play a mediatory role in Kashmir.

What caused greater concern in Pakistan was her interview with the BBC. While she said that Washington and Islamabad had “increased cooperation when it comes to fighting terrorism”, she went on to give the ominous warning that if an attack on US is traced “to be Pakistani, it would have a very devastating impact on our relationship”.

Such a comment was against the grain of the bilateral talks and was also irrational. Clearly, 9/11 was the most notable attack against the US. It was the handiwork of Al Qaeda operating from Taliban-controlled Afghanistan, and the suicide bombers involved were Saudi and Egyptian nationals. Pakistan has never been blamed for 9/11.

As for the recent terrorist attempt in New York by Faisal Shahzad, the fact is that he is a US national of Pakistani origin. He was apparently radicalised in the US though he did visit Pakistan’s tribal area for training. The blame for his attempted attack cannot be placed on the Pakistan government, just as the US never put the blame for 9/11 on the Saudi and Egyptian governments.

In fact, no government can be blamed for crimes abroad committed by any of its nationals — unless specific evidence can be found linking such individuals with some official agency.

It seems there are two opposite lines of thinking working in Washington at present. On the one hand, there is appreciation that Pakistan is a key ally in the war against the Al Qaeda and the Taliban. On the other hand, there is unease about Pakistan’s sincerity and a suspicion that some elements in its security apparatus might have links with the Taliban. Anti-Americanism in Pakistan is also causing concern in Washington. This could be why US officials seem to blow hot and cold at the same time in the context of relations with Pakistan.

In the background, there is the frustration that the US has not been able so far either to defeat the terrorists in Afghanistan or ensure security in the American mainland. Blame has to be placed somewhere for this and Pakistan comes as a handy scapegoat. But this is not rational thinking and could do irreparable harm to the bilateral relationship.

Of course, lack of rationality is evident in Pakistan as well. In their anti-American rhetoric, many people here forget that the extremist version of Islam espoused by the Al Qaeda and Taliban constitutes an existential threat to the Pakistani state and society. If they manage to seize power, they would take us back to the medieval times. They are destroying peace all over Pakistan, killing and maiming men, women and children mercilessly.

Clearly, we have a common interest with the US and Nato to fight the terrorists. This is very much our war. If the US/Nato were to withdraw from Afghanistan prematurely, these terrorists would cause serious destabilisation in Pakistan. In such a scenario, despite assurances, fears have been voiced of Pakistan’s nuclear assets falling into the hands of extremists leading to surgical strikes by the West, Israel or India.It is irrational to regard the US as our friend and enemy at the same time. Last year, our media raised many fears about the implications of the Kerry-Lugar bill, but nothing untoward happened and this is now a forgotten issue. The undeniable fact is that the US has given more aid to Pakistan than any other country and our precarious economic condition at present makes the US connection an absolute necessity.

There is a myth that also needs to be exposed. Some Pakistanis think that if we had not joined the US war against terror after 9/11, there would have been neither terrorism in Pakistan nor would we have suffered economic losses of over $40bn.

In fact, if, after 9/11, Pakistan had refused to join the US and the world community (which passed a unanimous vote at the UN Security Council), it would have become isolated, regarded as an ally of the Taliban regime and branded as a terrorist state. Its aid would have been stopped and trade curtailed. Its nuclear assets could have been attacked. The economic losses would have been much more than $40bn and the political consequences highly negative.

These are the realities in our relationship with the US that highlight the importance of the strategic dialogue with that country.