Strategic is not the word
 

[COLOR="DarkOrange"][SIZE="6"][CENTER][U][B][FONT="Georgia"]Strategic is not the word[/FONT][/B][/U][/CENTER][/SIZE][/COLOR]


[COLOR="YellowGreen"][SIZE="2"][U][B][FONT="Georgia"]Saleem Safi[/FONT][/B][/U][/SIZE][/COLOR]
The nature of relations among nations is defined, among other things, by interests of the parties. These interests may vary with prevalent internal compulsions and international environment. Pakistan-US relations are no exception to this rule and have therefore seen many ups and downs since the early fifties. For the last ten years, the relations between Islamabad and Washington have not been a smooth affair. Despite Pakistan being declared a major non-NATO ally by the Bush administration, this era was marked by many ups and downs; the ups were observed at the points of converging interests while the downs were attributed either to the divergent strategic worldview of the two partners or lack of trust.
Obama was seized with the Afghanistan and Iraq wars from the very first day. For Afghanistan he needed Pakistan more than any other country. So he hyphenated Pakistan with Afghanistan in the “AfPak” strategy. The “strategic dialogue” between the two countries was aimed at transforming the relations into a long-term affair. Three rounds of the strategic dialogue have been held since it started in 2009: two in Washington and one in Islamabad. The government in Islamabad has been taking credit for this dialogue, calling it a major breakthrough. If Pakistan and the US could actually become strategic partners as a result of this dialogue, then the government should rightfully claim credit for it. However, the dialogue, admittedly with no apparent negatives, is a good beginning, but “strategic” is not the right word for it.
A dialogue could only be termed strategic if the parties have mutually defined specific objectives and have unanimously decided the means to achieve it through concerted efforts. The tactics to achieve such objectives may be mutually adjusted with varying circumstances. But keeping in view these pre-requisites, the current dialogue between the US and Pakistan is not ‘strategic’ in its true essence. The stated objectives of the US and Pakistan in the region vary to an extent that convergence seems a far cry.
As a superpower, the US has got global ambitions which dictate a global strategic vision. This vision has been defining its engagements with various regions around the globe. For South Asia it should inevitably define its objectives through that prism. Pakistan is a part of this region. There are other countries which equally, if not more forcefully, vie for US attention regarding their interests and concerns. The US has limitations on relations and engagements with all such stakeholders. It has some very legitimate concerns in the region as well. The US is trying to address these concerns in relations to its limitations.
Immediately, the US is investing money and men in eliminating the threat of terrorism to its citizens and interests that have generally originated from Afghanistan. This very goal has defined its engagement with Pakistan and other countries of the region. Secondly, the US is interested in reaching an arrangement in Afghanistan that should also shoulder its agenda for Central Asia, Pakistan, Iran and China.
The US appreciates the fact, that in the scheme of things for achieving its long-term objectives in the region, it needs India, an emerging economic and military power, more than any other country. This compulsion has convinced the US to engage India in a multi-faceted manner, and therefore has defined its relations with that country as “strategic.” The US tactics to give India a role in Afghanistan and a hegemonic mission in the region are dictated by this very vision.
On the other hand, Pakistan is legitimately concerned about the threats from India. The US-India strategic partnership serves to bolster these threats, instead of minimising them. The cornerstone of our strategic vision has been to counter that Indian threat through military, economic, diplomatic and political means. On the other hand, Pakistan wants a friendly Afghanistan that should neither threaten its integrity nor partner with India to sandwich it between two antagonistic rivals. Therefore, its efforts are directed at getting a greater role in Afghanistan, along with thwarting Indian designs in that country. For the last nine years, Pakistan has been emphasising the need for the US to shut India out of the Afghan game.
However the US, due to its strategic vision for the region and the anticipated Indian role, has been resisting this demand. India has extended its tentacles in the Afghan government and society. This reluctance has sown seeds of distrust between Pakistan and the US too. The US and its Nato allies have been accusing Pakistan of a “go-slow” and “confused” policy vis-à-vis the militancy within its own borders and inside Afghanistan. It has also been accused of tolerating the Taliban and Al-Qaeda, which are spearheading resistance in Afghanistan.
Since the US is still continuing with the same policy, how can Pakistan share the US objectives vis-à-vis Afghanistan and the region? And if the objectives of these two partners is divergent, how can they come together to define a shared strategy to achieve such objectives? These are problems that are yet to be resolved. However, if the current dialogue is aimed at reconciling the US-Pakistan objectives in the region, or to decide a consensus strategy to achieve the already settled goals, then it should be called a “strategic dialogue.”
But all indications are that the US is more interested in addressing its concerns in the region and in achieving its goals. On the other hand, Pakistan is trying to address its own concerns (at variance with the US) in Afghanistan and the wider region. So the current “strategic dialogue” is a mere extension of the “transactional” relations between the two countries. The economic and military benefits from this dialogue should be viewed through that perspective.
[COLOR="Blue"]The writer works for Geo TV. Email: saleem.safi @janggroup.com.pk
[/COLOR]