Dawn Editorial
Sunday, 01 Aug, 2010


Perhaps it was inevitable that a government which appears largely to have surrendered the national security and foreign policy domains to the army high command would eventually find itself torn in opposite directions.



Following UK Prime Minister David Cameron’s highly unfortunate, but very deliberate, comments, the army has shown its displeasure by making the ISI chief skip upcoming meetings with intelligence counterparts in the UK. The presidency, however, is determined to go ahead with its planned visit to the UK, despite the reservations of the diplomatic community here and despite the UK prime minister publicly stating that he would take up with President Zardari the matter of support for groups that ‘export terror’ from Pakistani soil. In the particular instance, who here is right? Diplomatic procedure in such cases is a carefully graded series of reactions: express stiff annoyance by summoning the top relevant foreign diplomat in Islamabad; express severe displeasure by calling home the Pakistani high commissioner for ‘consultations’; or trigger a full-blown diplomatic crisis by recalling the Pakistani high commissioner. President Zardari appears to have chosen the softest of options: summon the second-highest ranking UK official in Islamabad while the high commissioner is away to receive Mr Zardari in the UK.

The question then: is the presidency being unnecessarily ‘soft’? Perhaps. But then the security establishment being up in arms and demanding a ‘strong’ reaction is also not without its own set of problems. Recently, the top American military official, Adm Mike Mullen, spoke in New Delhi about the threat that the Lashkar-i-Taiba posed to the outside world, effectively the ‘export of terror’ concern articulated by Mr Cameron. Adm Mullen immediately thereafter visited Pakistan and refused to tone down his comments here. Yet there was no fierce reaction from the security establishment. So is there a double standard at work? Almost certainly. That, though, may be embedded in the nature of international relations: push back fiercely when you can, be more circumspect when you have to be. Three countries have attacked Pakistan recently over the existence of groups here that may or may not have official support and which launch attacks outside the country. These are Afghanistan, the UK and the US. That the fiercest diplomatic reaction has been reserved for Afghanistan and the softest for the US tells a story of its own.

Nevertheless, the presidency, the political government and the security establishment need to address the issue of being on different pages so often. Speaking with different voices on the same issues sends damaging signals, externally and internally. The civil-military imbalance is a reality here, but it can definitely be managed in a more constructive manner.