Question unanswered, again
If the idea behind convening the APC was to seek support from politicians for military and ISI against the charges levelled by the Obama administration, the exercise has been successful. Washington has also been told that any misadventure in Pakistan would be extremely unpopular in the country. But if the purpose was to seek inputs for evolving a better policy to deal with terrorism, there has been little success. Meanwhile, the conference has left a number of questions that perturb many Pakistanis unanswered.
A fairly large chunk of invitees, consisting of almost a dozen religious outfits mostly unrepresented in the Parliament, comprised of US haters who want a review of foreign policy vis-à-vis US, disown the anti-terrorist war and maintain it serves only American interests. They oppose military action in the tribal areas and explain away the bloody terrorist attacks in the country as acts of revenge for Pakistan’s support for the US. Once Pakistan parts ways with Washington the acts would cease, they believe. This section of the participants was most vocal in condemning the US. The government and the military might need their support but aware of Pakistan’s economic and strategic compulsions, it wanted to keep its differences with Washington within manageable limits. The section of the resolution dealing with foreign policy, therefore, simply reiterates what FO has done for sixty-odd years. It aims at maintaining friendly relations with all countries of the world on the basis of sovereign equality, mutual interest and respect. The US haters were however given a major concession. The resolution gives priority to negotiations with the militants over military operations. The unrealistic idea was tested in Swat but had to be abandoned after huge losses suffered by both civilian population and military personnel.
With the Baloch nationalists boycotting the APC, there were only Nawaz and to some extent Mahmud Khan Acakazai who raised some of the basic questions that remained unanswered. After all there must be some reason why the country has become isolated in the world. Why were the country’s foreign and defence policies being formulated by those not entitled to do so? Why should ISI be involved in dealing with the Afghan crisis year after year? A number of questions of the sort will continue to be asked.
