So it’s Musharraf who first allowed drone strikes, after all. The truth came out in his talk with the CNN at Islamabad on Friday. It has been long since, nine years, that the pilot-less planes began hitting Pakistan’s tribal areas with the ostensible purpose of taking out militants. The number of unwary civilians who are among the victims continues to climb. And as the hits became more frequent and more lethal with time, so did the tempers of Pakistanis rise and both the US and their own government came under severe criticism, more particularly after the Musharraf’s exit. Pakistani leaders, aware that these attacks, carried out without taking Pakistan into confidence, became more vociferous in castigating the US for violating Pakistan sovereignty and causing deaths of innocent civilians and hatred of it among the masses.

There were, off and on, rebuttals of the charge that the US was using the drones on its own; American officials, congressmen and media would counter the criticism by averring that there had been a secret deal between the two governments on the issue and that there was a clear understanding of the Pakistan government to their use. However, despite protestations, the PPP-led government did not actively pursue the unambiguous mandate it had received from the parliamentarians to see to it that no more drones are seen in the country’s skies.

Musharraf’s remark that there was a caveat to the strike i.e. they were allowed “only on a few occasion, when a target was absolutely isolated and no chance of collateral damage” and that there was no time for our own army to act is of little value, even if it is true. It is like giving someone an inch and he will take a mile and the superpower is not likely to stop at the mile. With a life-long service in the army and as a military strategist, he should have known this time-honoured reality. Besides, the drone permission makes a mockery of all the denunciation of the US and the protest. As for his defence that the issue was cleared at the military and intelligence level, the charge is grave and cannot escape notice, for the same cadres would have the public believe they have always vehemently opposed drone strikes. Musharraf’s confession lays him open to the accusation that he is fully responsible for all the deaths and devastation that the merciless missiles have been inflicting on the tribal region. Already facing a treason charge for subverting the constitution, he must be made accountable for this insidious crime as well.

http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-ne...ons/editorials

The United States may consider the drone technology a cost effective tool in the ‘war on terror’, but its use is taking heavy toll on lives of people in the form of civilian casualties as well as constant fear of aerial reconnaissance and attack.

So far the drone strikes have killed up to 3,581 people in Pakistan, including 884 civilians and 197 children since 2004, according to the London-based Bureau of Investigative Journalism report. Besides, the drones have created psychological problems among the masses of the respective countries due to constant fear of drone attacks and its patrol in the skies above, emitting the buzzing sound giving an alarm of raid for the people.

The Western combatants have completely failed to understand the ill effects of drone war against Al Qaeda and Taliban militants. Generally they think that the use of unmanned Robotic aircrafts will bring peace in the world and they would emerge victorious, but the common apprehension is that its use is causing widespread hatred among the masses and may lead to more destabilizing effects. The collateral damage caused by the drone raids including the killing of innocent people and damage to public properties, is adversely affecting the lives of the masses of the respective countries. The use of the Predator or Reaper unmanned aerial vehicle is fragmenting the primitive Pakhtun societies by violating their codes of honour, which is igniting more hatred among them. As such these raids are inflaming the desire for revenge among the tribes who are directly experiencing the same and the masses of the respective countries in general, having destabilizing effects on them and may lead to an increase in violence on large scale. The CIA led drone strikes by predator and reaper aircraft armed with Hellfire missiles are fanning anti-US sentiments in Pakistan, Afghanistan or elsewhere. Besides, an unknown number of civilian casualties caused by these strikes have prompted accusations of extrajudicial killings in shadows with no oversight by legal proceedings which have not only harmed the image of America but also causing damage to the so called war on terror. However, America seems to have failed to understand this fact despite massive protests by the people as well as the governments of the respective countries.

And although the United States considers its use as an effective instrument in the war against Al Qaeda as well as Taliban militants and has repeatedly justified its effectiveness against them in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia, but the covert strikes have caused more damage due to an irreparable loss in the form of civilian casualties. Similarly these raids have led to huge disruptions and widespread criticism from human rights groups and other members of international community. They term the use of unmanned technology as inhuman and against international law, which bound the world states to respect each other’s claims of inherent freedom of self-determination and sovereignty. Besides contrary to the US claims of effectiveness of drone attacks in assassinating the high-profile Al Qaeda and Taliban figures in Pakistan or elsewhere, these attacks have provoked militants to speed up their activities and resulted into intensified feelings of hatred among the masses, which is turning into more extremism. Hence in order to avenge, the militants carry out more targets on security forces and against the governments’ installations in their respective countries without any fear of resistance from people. As such the use of unmanned Robotic aircrafts is not only causing violations of territories of the sovereign states but also creating law and order situation for the governments of the respective countries in the form of public protests and increasing attacks on the governments’ installations. That’s why the Pakistani Government always protested the drone strikes by highlighting the adverse effects of these strikes, however, Washington always believed them a vital weapon in the war against terror and thus reluctant to give up the same.

The Washington heavy reliance on drones to wage war against Al Qaeda and Taliban in Pakistan, Afghanistan or elsewhere has provoked the questions about the use of the aircraft and the legality of targeted killings as they are undertaken in the shadows with no legal procedure by any court or other law makers. Besides these covert CIA drone raids have created a lot of problems for the governments of the above mentioned states as they have to pay for the damages caused by these strikes in the form of increasing law and order situation.

Therefore keeping in view the ill effects of these strikes that are not only viewed as illegal and hated by many people but have created a lot of inconvenience among the masses not only those directly experiencing the same but also by the people who have not seen them. As such its use should be abolished as inhuman and against international law.

http://www.thefrontierpost.com/category/40/

Shakeel Afridi is one such character that can appear to be a villain if you if you want to see it that way, but also a hero of a sort to many more. His role in gathering intelligence for the lead up to the operation that killed Osama bin Laden is praised by the US though there are not so many takers of this idea in Pakistan. Here he is considered a traitor, someone who collaborated with outside forces, even if it was meant for a greater good. However, sentiments are not what the governments are run on; it is the law that takes precedence over everything else.

It is in this sense that one must question as to why he is not being treated well in the prison he is being kept at. Reportedly, he is on a hunger strike because if maltreatment he is getting at the hands of his jail staff. What his family alleges, if taken at face value, is against basic human rights that he has been denied visitation rights and also denied to meet his counsel. That he is on a hunger strike, as it is one of the last options a prisoner would resort to, gives credence to the allegations levelled by his family and his counsel. One can also contest that his trial was a sham of legal proceedings considering that there were a number of lacunas in the proceedings. That his trial ended in a day doesn’t help matters much either, and that he was convicted on having links with a banned religious militant outfit after the authorities failed to find any proof of his involvement in the Osama bin Laden operation, and then there is the legal abuse of powers by the magistrate who wasn’t legally authorised to award more than three years of punishment but sentenced Mr Afridi to 33 years of prison.

All these problems aside, what is really worrying at the moment is the treatment he is being meted with. This is no way of treating a prisoner, who if not now, might in the future just be given the avatar of a hero, if and when we decide to stop appeasing the militants and take a stand against them. The country is already under the lights, and not in a good fashion after an attack on Sarabjit Singh in a prison in Lahore, for treating its prisoners with lax security and giving them a tough time. This equates to denying prisoners their basic human rights, which sort of puts every convention and law on human rights in jeopardy. The authorities must make sure that no prisoner is treated that way, let alone a high profile one.

- See more at: http://www.pakistantoday.com.pk/2013....bn2iwKYS.dpuf

The attacks of 9/11 caused immense fury in America. The wars of vengeance in Afghanistan and Iraq put deadly arsenal of American armed forces on full display. The country, which was loved for blue jean and popular culture, is now being hated for carpet bombing and human rights violations at Abu-Gharib and Guantanamo jails.

These wars not only victimized innocent people around the global but also badly damaged the American ideals such as freedom, justice, equality, human dignity, and opportunity. The excessive use of drones became the major cause of transforming American dream into a nightmare.

Today, the US government is facing severe criticism for it’s illegal and unethical drone campaign all over the world. It is floating cock and bull stories in the media to brush off such studies which blame US government for thousands of extra judicial killings due to CIA operated drones. Recently, New York Times claimed in a report that drones operated in Pakistan under a 2004 secret deal between US and Pakistan government. The report’s claim was dismissed by Pakistan Foreign Office terming it baseless and part of propaganda to create confusion about the clear position of Pakistan over this issue.

Pakistan became part of American alliance in the Global War against terrorism as a responsible member of sovereign state system under United Nations. But it was not equipped with modern technology which was required to tackle untraditional threats such as Al-Qaeda. Therefore, it was very much dependent on American technological assistance to deal with the situation which emerged after the fall of Taliban regime in Kabul. But the behavior of ISAF/NATO troops was not collaborative rather it was threatening. The threats of hot pursuits by top officials of Pentagon are on record. In this situation, CIA was least interested in winning Pakistan’s consent for it’s offensive on the Pak-Afghan border. In fact, the ambitious CIA operatives had become unscrupulous in the hunt for high value targets of Al-Qaeda and took every chance to hit them without assessing collateral damages and considering norms of international laws. The attack of ISAF/Nato forces on the Salala check post was recent manifestation of such hawkish posture of USA. CIA’s utilization of drones as regular weapon has always stood counter productive. Thousands of innocent children and women became victims to this lethal weapon. This outcome invoked more hatred and vengeance against America due to which terrorist organizations gathered more recruits. Even in the settled areas of the country, people developed anti American sentiments over the violation of national sovereignty by unwanted drone strikes.

The government of America also neglected legal opinion while conducting these attacks. The United Nations challenged the legality of US drone killings in a May 2010 report by Philip Alston, who said that the drone killings might be lawful in the context of authorized armed conflict e.g, in Afghanistan, however, its use “far from the battle zone” was highly questionable. This was surely referred to drone attacks in Pakistan. An American writer Conor Murphy also criticized US President Barack Obama’s increasingly hawkish foreign policy, asserting that the US leader lacked constitutional or international authority to pursue drone attacks against Pakistan. Similarly, Richard Flak, professor of international affairs and politics at Princeton University believed that the widespread killing of civilians in drone strikes established the act as “war crimes”. The criticism does not end here. An international law expert Professor Mary Ellen O, Connell seriously questioned the legality of drone attacks in Pakistan in a powerful testimony before the US Congress.

Most recently, Ben Emmerson the UN special Rapporteur toured Pakistan from 11-13 March to gather first-hand information on drone strikes and their impact on civilians. He expressed that the drone campaign involved use of force on the territory of another state without its consent and therefore it is a violation of Pakistan’s sovereignty. Sources said the UN rapporteur was informed in clear terms that there was no secret understanding between Pakistan and the US on drone attacks. Emmerson also met with tribal leaders and victims of drone strikes in Islamabad, who informed him that innocent tribesmen were often targeted by drones because they were indistinguishable from Taliban militants. According to Emmerson, “It is time for the international community to heed the concerns of Pakistan, and give the next democratically elected government of Pakistan the space, support and assistance it needs to deliver a lasting peace on its own territory without forcible military interference by other states.

These statements evidently signify that the US nationals and western experts themselves opposed use of drones inside Pakistan’s territory. However, false reporting by CIA mouthpieces like New York Times certainly attempt to neutralize criticism against US drone policy in Pakistan. Government of Pakistan has long presented its clear stance on the drone strikes before US and international community by terming those as illegal, violation of Pakistan’s territorial sovereignty and counter-productive. However, Pakistan’s protest has yet not been given due consideration. Increase in drone attacks in Pakistan while US plan to wind up its war in Afghanistan is damaging for US own interests in the region.


http://www.thefrontierpost.com/category/40/

The NATO-Russia founding ACT of 1997 provides Russia with voice but not veto and ensures that Russia will be consulted on key European security issues outside Europe. However many east European NATO members continue to see NATO’s role in historical terms, that is protection against any Russian aggression.

Some Poles, for instance, believe that President Putin’s goal is to consolidate his power in Russia, then recreate the USSR and impose his domination over Eastern Europe, as Russian leaders have done for centuries. For them, joining NATO was the only way for Poland to protect itself from this danger. Russia too does not seem to be satisfied with NATO’s eastward expansion. Although EU-Russian relations have improved, neither USA nor EU sees Russia as a friend or an ally, so is the case with Russia itself. Although Moscow’s relatively muted response to the 2004 NATO expansion is in stark contrast to her vocal opposition in 1999, NATO’s methodical eastward expansion has created new levels of mistrust and suspicion. The old cold war perceptions exist and continue to guide the policies and actions of the contestants. As such Russian factor continues to provide justification for maintaining NATO, hence close alliance of US and Europe.

Future of any organization depends upon the will of States to remain committed to its aims and objectives, and to adjust to new demands and obligations. The ten additions to NATO since 1999 are demonstrative of this will. However, the key measure of political will is that which emanates from its four key members: France, Germany, UK and USA. While other member States will exert influence, the cornerstone of debate on NATO’s future would depend upon these members. Because America’s perception of war on terror is not widely shared, the US might face some sort of isolation. However, US’s special relations with London, and EU’s growing economic difficulties provide the US with leverage over EU and enables it to keep making use of NATO in achieving its global objectives.

In the light of above discussed factors, USA and European countries can have three main options with regard to its future. The first is that of further expansion. NATO has created Membership Action Plan (MAP) for enhancing its membership. Although, MAP does not assure its expansion, it does reflect member countries’ interest in expanding its membership and consequently role.
But there are certain problems with regard to inclusion of certain countries in NATO such as Russia. Furthermore, Russian inclusion might hinder US’s using NATO as an ‘interventionist’ organization.

On the other hand, it is also not clear that any of NATO’s current members want to add Russia to the alliance. Former Soviet satellites, including Hungary, Bulgaria, Slovakia and the Czech Republic, as well as the Baltic states, would almost certainly oppose it, given their long-standing (and historically justified) fear of Russian expansionist intentions.

It is also unclear whether NATO’s core members, including Great Britain, France and Germany, would support such a move, since Russian membership would include an economic cost and EU nations might be reluctant to spend any capital. However, inclusion of other countries might add to military muscle of NATO and increase its reach throughout the world.

In view of NATO’s recent expansions, and the role it has played in Afghanistan and ibya operations, contraction does not seem a feasible option. None of NATO’s current members have shown any intention of either withdrawing from it or voting other members out. Such a policy is likely to be counterproductive and may trigger dissensions. On the other hand, the obvious advantage of maintaining the status quo is that current members can maintain their political base.

Each new member gains a voting interest in the alliance, and therefore, its own piece of pie. It is for this reason and importance of NATO in providing certain strategic and political advantages that the old members such as Germany and France rightly see new additions as ‘potential competitors’ and aspirants for prestige within the alliance. On other hand, policy of non-expansion may prove to be costly in that it may result in EU taking over its position in Europe and in the world, which would be disadvantageous not only to the but also to certain European powers.

Dissolving alliance, favoured by some, would mitigate the risks associated with its expansion and ease tensions with Russia. The rise of EU would suffice to fill the gap created by dissolution of the alliance. It also seems likely that most European States want to see Europe free from US pressure and intervention in European affairs. But it is highly unlikely to happen in view of the difficulties which EU is facing.

With its limited military capabilities, it cannot take on large scale military operations. From the US’s perspective, dissolution of NATO will deprive of it an important mechanism of extending influence over Europe, and stifling Russian ambitions and influence. Therefore, the US will oppose any suggestion of either dissolving or replacing NATO.

From an American perspective, NATO is still relevant, enabling it to maintain its dominant position in Europe. Continued existence and expansion of NATO is likely to prove beneficial not only to European members but also to USA and non-European NATO (Turkey & Canada) members in particular. Dissolving NATO is likely to leave a wide gap in Europe which EU cannot fill given its limited capability and financial constraints. What seems most feasible is to expand it by including other ‘like-minded’ States and re-invent its role in view of changing circumstances and sources of security threats.

The United States needs NATO - for now. Although NATO’s mission is no longer to deter Soviet aggression, and Russia is no longer a legitimate threat to European peace and prosperity, Washington’s influence continues to ensure that NATO’s focus closely parallels her own strategic interests.

Expanding NATO to include nations who will stand by USA against acts of terrorism is not just feasible, acceptable and suitable; it is absolutely necessary for the United States to remain relevant in global affairs and retains its status as the world’s predominant power.

(The writers is a research-analyst of International Relations and Pakistan’s foreign and domestic affairs)

salmanrafisheikh@hotmail.com

http://www.thefrontierpost.com/category/40/

Drone is a milder terminology used for the ‘Unarmed Combat Aerial Vehicle (UCAV) being employed by the CIA and other clandestine troops on behalf of American Department of Defense. One wonders whether this class of undeclared combatants is covered by the UN mandate that authorized the use of military force in Afghanistan. Surely, there is no legitimacy for using these aerial vehicles inside Pakistan. Beyond doubt, drone strikes in Pakistan are unethical, illegal, non-productive and a severe violation of international law.
America has not yet answered concerns regarding the secrecy, legality and efficacy of the drone warfare program. Drone raids have created more extremists than they could eliminate. Obama administration argues that targeted drone attacks have a legal basis, drawing strength from the congressional authorization to use force after 9/11.
American intelligentsia is using its influence to bring drone warfare out of darkness of mystery and into public view. Their concerns are: secrecy, legality and morality. Drone strikes and targeted kill lists are highly classified. This makes it difficult to discern the true effectiveness of the drones at tactical level. No one knows who is on the American kill list, no one knows how they got there and no one knows what they can do to get themselves off. What makes this situation even worse is that no one can tell people in these communities what they can do to make themselves safe. It’s all terrifyingly random, sudden, and without warning.
Under the rules of ‘International Humanitarian Law’, targeted killing is only lawful when it meets three preconditions: the target is directly participating in the hostilities; the use of force is proportionate; and precautions are taken to minimize harm to civilians. According to International Law, invitation from the targeted country and the right of self defence, with certain preconditions, is the only two ways through which drone strikes can be justified on sovereign countries.
Even if all legal avenues have been addressed, the question remains: Does drone warfare create a safer environment and keep non-combatants out of harm’s way? On October 4, 2012, Stanford and New York Universities released a major study about the use of drones. The key message was: Drones are terrorizing an entire civilian population; they live under the constant threat of annihilation. People hear them day and night. Parents are afraid to send their children to school. Women are afraid to go to markets. Families are afraid to gather at funerals for people wrongly killed in earlier strikes. Drivers are afraid to deliver food from other parts of the country. The routines of daily life have been ripped to shreds. Indisputably innocent people cower in their homes, afraid to assemble on the streets. “Double taps,” or secondary strikes on the same target, have stopped residents from aiding those who have been injured; humanitarian agencies also delay their assistance by hours. The US defines militants as all military-age males, typically between 18 and 65. The alleged militants’ homes are tagged on a tip off from an informant. And because no one knows who the informants are, people are reluctant to invite neighbours into their homes.
Public opinion in Pakistan is vehemently hostile towards the usage of these so called drones. Pakistan has never granted overt approval for use of drones in its air-space. Rumors of covert understanding have correspondingly invoked denials from Pakistani side. However, President Musharraf’s recent acknowledgement that he had allowed limited usage of drones has severely dented Pakistan’s claim about violation of its sovereignty.
Americans are singing praises regarding the achievement of military objectives through drones. Part of this seems to be a sponsored effort by the military industrial lobbies vying for new orders for additional drones. In April 2012, the marketing and consultancy firm, Teal Group, projected that worldwide UAV spending will double over the next decade, reaching an estimated $94bn by 2021.
There is a need to ponder whether drones are effective at reducing the will of the adversary to fight. Recent figures out of Afghanistan are discouraging. The number of attacks reportedly carried out by “insurgents” in the period from April to June 2012 was 11% higher than during the same period of 2011. This resulted in almost 110 attacks a day during the month of June 2012, the highest number of attacks for that month since the war began. These statistics do not appear to be in line with an effective counterterrorism policy that boasts of sapping the will of the enemy to fight. On the contrary, one could argue that drone strikes are only encouraging more violence on the part of the insurgents.
The war in Afghanistan is now the longest war in America’s history. Perhaps some light could be shed on current events by looking back at America’s second longest war, the war in Vietnam. Here too, conventional wisdom held that if you just “bombed them” hard enough and long enough, you would weaken the enemy’s resistance and will to fight.
This would then render the adversary more amenable to seeing and understanding your position, and seek a cessation to hostilities.
It was this thought-process during the 1960s that led to the bombing campaign known as “Operation Rolling Thunder.” It was originally planned to last just twelve weeks and was designed to bring the enemy to his “senses.” It ended up lasting three years and nine months. In a study funded by the Defense Department, and carried out by the Rand Corporation, it was found that the bombing campaign did not have the intended effect on enemy morale. On the contrary, the study reported that “…enemy troops, despite increasing hardships and frustrations with no rewarding victories to show in return, have failed to reveal any signs of cracking.”
London-based ‘Bureau of Investigative Journalism’ estimated that due to drone attacks, 472 to 885 civilians were killed in Pakistan during the period 2002-2012. Another candid estimate puts the ratio of civilian casualties in Pakistan to as high as 97 percent. Such human tragedy cannot be pushed under the carpet in the garb of innocent looking terminologies like ‘collateral damage’.
From utility stand point, usage of such aerial vehicles is proving counterproductive. More than inaccuracy of onboard weapons, flawed intelligence information appears to be the underlying cause for these uncalled for civilian losses. Drone strikes in Pakistan are shrinking the space created by the Pakistan Army after successful operations in areas like Swat, Bajour and South Waziristan. Majority of people in FATA are against the drone strikes and favor Pakistan Army operation to clear out militants from their areas.

(Writer is Consultant, Policy & Strategic Response, IPRI)


http://www.thefrontierpost.com/category/40/

What Did Pakistan Premier Sharif Actually Accomplish on His US Visit?

A look at a visit and what it means for Washington, Islamabad as well as other regional actors.

By Touqir Hussain and David Silverman
October 29, 2015

Pakistan’s Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif just concluded an official visit to Washington. Despite a whole range of issues on which the U.S. and Pakistan do not see eye to eye, they managed to produce a surprisingly positive joint statement that, according to a State Department spokesman, highlighted their “strong and growing relationship.” Kind words helped the visit, but two defined it: Kunduz and China.

Afghanistan, security, and counterterrorism operations remain central to both sides. The United States underestimated the strength and staying power of the Taliban. Kunduz showed that the Taliban can achieve large-scale dislocations that can last weeks (and longer, if it were left to the Afghan National Security Forces only). It also proved to both the Taliban and unity government the limits of a military solution. They are at a stalemate, and there is no real alternative but reconciliation. The Taliban need to be dealt with not just militarily but politically as well. Whether the unity government has been convinced of that remains to be seen.

Kunduz requires Pakistan to recalculate also. A friendly government in Kabul is unrealizable, and undermining Indian influence at the expense of Afghanistan’s stability only sows instability in Pakistan. The troop extension has renewed American pressure on Pakistan. After the report of Mullah Omar’s death, his successor, Mullah Akhtar Mohammad Mansour, embarked on a messy campaign to consolidate power. Before his authority vested, a return to negotiations would be fruitless. As PM Sharif noted during his visit, Pakistan “cannot bring [the Taliban] to the table and be asked to kill them at the same time.”

But Pakistan can accelerate the run-up to talks by eliminating factions that might vie with Mansour for control—which would benefit Afghanistan, the United States, and Pakistan itself—and then push the Taliban to the table when the time comes. Pakistan’s apparent recalcitrance to do so is aimed not at Afghanistan, but at India and Indian interests in Afghanistan. Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s preconditions for a meeting between the Indian and Pakistani national security advisers led to its cancellation. Pakistan’s concerns about Indian influence gained legitimacy and stoked Pakistan’s insecurities: that it was helping create an Afghanistan that was inconsistent with its strategic interests and abetting India’s presence in and relationship with Afghanistan. Pakistan came to see the Indian “threat” as having doubled. Despite some hopeful signs earlier, relations on the subcontinent are back at square one.

This dynamic has created challenges for the U.S. policymakers hesitant to wade deeper into an assortment of regional disputes and rivalries. The decision to increase and extend the deployment of U.S. troops may prove unpopular, but President Obama has no more campaigns to run. If there is a silver lining, the decision confirmed U.S. regional interests and relations are not transactional in nature. This will influence negotiated outcomes in America’s favor. (On the other hand, how the continued presence of U.S. and coalition forces might affect the reemergence of al Qaeda and the Islamic State’s expansion in Afghanistan is an open and concerning question; the consequence of withdrawal is well known.) Ultimately, peace cannot take hold without Pakistan’s cooperation. At the same time, instability is not its fault alone—a nuance that is often overlooked and one that has made public diplomacy very difficult.

Adding to the complexity, internal deliberations are taking place within a changing strategic environment. China’s pursuits are expanding, as is its influence. Pakistan serves as a critical bridge from the Middle Kingdom to the Middle East and is a strategic terminus in its own right. Iran has similar value for China. The same claim cannot be made in Kabul; China’s infrastructure plans will circumvent Afghanistan, and without regional cooperation, it will be more likely to reprise its role as the unhappy host of Great Game politics. But this too affects Islamabad: instability in Afghanistan raises the risks of foreign investments in Pakistan, Chinese or otherwise. Peace has become indivisible.

Pakistan wants help resolving its longstanding challenges with India. Even minor progress on substantive issues would promote regional stability. China cannot provide the leverage to do so, nor would it necessarily be in its interests to advance India-Pakistan normalization; Pakistan is useful in balancing the U.S.-India strategic partnership. Consequently, Sharif suggested to an audience of U.S. senators that the U.S. was the “most relevant” third party to help mediate on Kashmir. The White House acknowledged the issue in the joint statement (which noted the importance of “resolving all outstanding territorial and other disputes, including Kashmir”).

Perhaps more irritating to New Delhi was the U.S. overtly noting the complexity Pakistan faces in combating domestic militancy while subtly referencing a potential Indian role in the same: Sharif reportedly shared information on India’s alleged activities in Pakistan during his meeting with Secretary Kerry. The joint statement, which came out later, recommended that the South Asian neighbors work together to “address mutual concerns of India and Pakistan regarding terrorism.”

The U.S. advocates dialogue between India and Pakistan and refrains from further involvement. But at the very least, it appears that Washington understands that if it squeezes Pakistan, like Pakistan feels Modi is already doing from India as well as Afghanistan, then Islamabad will be inclined to cling to the Taliban. India may believe this inevitable, but it still took notice of the specific mention of Lashkar-e-Taiba and the Haqqani Network in the joint statement—the first time the outlawed groups have appeared in such. As far as symbols go, it is significant—signaling an opening in Pakistan to address Indian and U.S. security concerns.

Although a high-profile topic in the run up to Sharif’s visit, the nuclear deal was a nonstarter. Outsized expectations were cut down during the official talks. Pakistan is interested in finding a path for admission into the Nuclear Suppliers Group, but not at the cost of its nuclear arsenal. Moreover, experiences from the 1980s demonstrate that swapping U.S. military hardware for Pakistani nuclear concessions is a temporary tradeoff aimed at Congress. Whether such a strategy is at work this time it is doubtful: Congress is opposed both to a military deal with Pakistan as well as to the expansion of its nuclear capability. It is likely though that discussions will continue, especially when Chief of Army Staff Raheel Sharif visits Washington next month.

In many ways, the visit was a minor success for both sides, as well as for Afghanistan and India. Yet the future of peace in the region remains uncertain.

Touqir Hussain, a former Ambassador and Diplomatic Adviser to the Prime Minister of Pakistan, is Adjunct Professor at Georgetown University and SAIS Johns Hopkins University, where he is also Senior Pakistan Visiting Fellow. He writes on South Asian security issues, Iran, and Afghanistan. David Silverman is an Associate Consultant at Manhattan Strategy Group. He has a Master’s degree in Asian Studies from the Elliott School of International Affairs at George Washington University.

Source:http://thediplomat.com/2015/10/what-...-his-us-visit/