Power, defence minister speaks

But on foreign policy

No doubt America’s role in the region has had its destabilising attributes, especially since the Soviet jihad planted the seeds for the current war on terrorism. And strategically, Islamabad and Washington have grown increasingly apart since the days when the ISI and CIA – with considerable Saudi help – prepped up the mujahideen across the Durand Line. But now, with its Afghan combat mission over and the Taliban gaining momentum, the US is also playing the pivotal role in maintaining regional stability. There is much to consider; the after-effect of the American drawdown, Pakistan’s own war on terror and the TTP’s Afghan sanctuary, Islamabad’s position vis-à-vis New Delhi, Chinese concerns about militants sheltering in the AfPak region, Russia’s increasing footprint, etc.

It is understandable, therefore, just why Gen Sharif’s recent visit to the Pentagon was so important. With the security landscape changing, a proper working understanding with Washington is crucial. Despite suffering the most from this war, Pakistan has been criticised in important international circles, largely due to the misunderstanding with the US. And now that Zarb-e-Azb has finally removed their ‘do more’ frustration, it is strange that senior government officials are giving statements that are contrary to the military’s – and indeed government’s – stated position.

First Sartaj Aziz muddied the waters by his Haqqani statement, while Gen Sharif was still in Washington, inviting an immediate reaction from the State Department and the typical, vague response from the Foreign Office. Now Kh Asif has come up with his two-pence regarding America’s “destabilising role” in the region. Again, while there must be continuing differences between Islamabad and Washington, the minister surely realises that the bilateral understanding goes back decades, and even the slightest revision must follow full-scale and exhaustive consultations. Also, it is not for the minister holding water and power and defence portfolios to present views with controversial foreign policy implications. Among other things, such confusion is also the result of not having a full-time foreign minister. Of late, there has been a tendency among cabinet members to complicate policy issues by giving irresponsible remarks, which are later dismissed as ‘personal opinions’. Such practices should be checked.