Walking the talk
With both the Sharifs – khaki and mufti — in western capitals, addressing international forums, the emphasis remained on Pakistan’s foreign and security policies in the past week. The prime minister addressed the United Nations General Assembly’s 70th session, unveiling his four-point ‘peace proposal’ with India. The army chief General Raheel Sharif, on the other hand, was busy elucidating Pakistan’s counterterrorism efforts since Zarb-e-Azb, addressing think tanks in Munich and London.
Both the leaders’ forays, however, bring into sharp relief Islamabad’s foreign policy and security conundrum. Admittedly there are plusses, like Pakistan being the kingpin in China’s silk route –maritime and land – initiative. Nonetheless, merely harping on Pak-China friendship being ‘as high as the mountains and deep as the sea’ cannot hide Islamabad’s regional and international isolation.
Prime Minister Sharif and his foreign policy team during the eight-day UNGA visit kept upon emphasising the oft-repeated mantra that Islamabad was a victim rather than the perpetrator of international terrorism. However, the world at large does not seem to be in a mood to lend a sympathetic ear to our case.
In the immediate aftermath of the capture of Kunduz by Afghan Taliban (by some accounts Afghan forces retaking it) Pakistan is being blamed for harbouring, abetting and arming the militants from its badlands. Even Abdullah Abdullah, the Afghan chief executive, was lecturing Islamabad on non-interference in its affairs at the UNGA.
Soon after the dastardly terrorist attack on Peshawar’s Badaber air base by TTP terrorists last month, Islamabad vowed to share with Kabul a dossier of TTP terrorists being harboured inside Afghanistan. However, Sharif and the Afghan chief executive did not even have a cursory meeting on the sidelines of the UNGA.
In the immediate aftermath of the capture of Kunduz by Afghan Taliban (by some accounts Afghan forces retaking it) Pakistan is being blamed for harbouring, abetting and arming the militants from its badlands
Similarly, what stopped the prime minister in laying bare Indian duplicity while addressing the GA? After all Indian Foreign Minister Sushma Swaraj did not spare Pakistan of being engaged in terrorist activities inside India while rejecting Sharif’s four-point proposal in her UNGA address. Pakistan’s dossier came later, and was submitted at the UN secretary general’s office by Pakistan’s ambassador Dr Maleeha Lodhi.
The prime minister, while responding to a question at his post UNGA address, lamely claimed that he was going to hand over the dossier to Secretary General Ban Ki-moon. What stopped him from doing so when he called on the UN boss will also remain a mystery.
For good reasons we consider Narendra Modi as the enfant terrible of the region. However to make the international community believe our case on being ‘victim of terrorism’ we need to walk the talk. The west, with a helping hand from our immediate neighbours, believes that Islamabad is still harbouring jihadist and terrorist groups. This remains the nub of the problem.
During the recently held strategic dialogue between the US and India in Washington, Islamabad was blamed for providing safe havens to the Haqqani network, Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), Jamaat al Dawaa and the so called D company. In a way the stage has been set on what US President Barack Obama will convey to Sharif when he embarks on a working visit to the US capital later this month.
The army chief has enumerated the success of Zarb-e-Azab, vowing to root out terrorism without making any distinctions. He pointed out that law and order related incidents were down from 250 a month a year ago to 15 a month.
This is great progress after decades of benign neglect on part of successive civilian and military governments. Nonetheless a lot still needs to be done.
Civilian-military partnership to combat terrorism and extremism is of such an exemplary nature that critics allege that the military is slowly but surely encroaching upon civilian turf. But in order to move forward certain home truths still need to be acknowledged and addressed.
With its Afghanistan operation coming to an end, it is obvious that the US is reducing its role in the region. US diplomats, while acknowledging Washington’s waning interest, assure that it will not abandon Afghanistan like it did in the late eighties post withdrawal of Soviet troops.
However, owing to exigencies of US foreign and security policies and its domestic constraints, emphasis is bound to shift to economic driven policies rather than security partnerships in the region. This gives a big edge to India, a much bigger and dynamic market for the west as compared to Pakistan.
Surely Beijing has always been a friend in need. However, it will be a grave error to view relations with present day China in the 70s matrix
Much is made about Sino-US rivalry and Washington feeling nervous about the China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC). However, if one cares to read the small print, Washington seems to be perfectly happy with China filling the (power) vacuum in the region.
China’s growing economic and political clout in Afghanistan is a welcome development both for Islamabad and Washington. However New Delhi remains nervous about CPEC and Beijing’s expanding footprint, perhaps at its expense.
But paradoxically notwithstanding regional and strategic rivalries, the world is fast changing — emphasising economic co-operation and trade even between archrivals. Perhaps it is eluding policy makers in Islamabad and New Delhi?
It is however interesting to note that the bilateral trade between India and China has a potential worth of USD 80 billion in 2015 from USD 70 billion in 2014, according to India China Chamber of Commerce and Industry (ICCCI) president.
Obviously Beijing does not consider its territorial disputes and strategic rivalries as an impediment to enhance bilateral economic co-operation and trade. This is a sign of mature diplomacy to move on for the general welfare of the populace despite having ostensibly inflexible principled positions on bilateral disputes.
Unfortunately Pakistan’s policy makers are still fixated in the 70s policies. Our civilian leadership never tires of emphasising the country’s strategic importance and its friendship with China.
Surely Beijing has always been a friend in need. However, it will be a grave error to view relations with present day China in the 70s matrix.
We are on the right path but somehow the whole world misunderstands us is the oft repeated mantra. This victim syndrome dominates the thinking of our foreign and security policy practitioners.
When we talk about being victims of terrorism we speak with a forked tongue. True, Pakistan has been subjected to the worst form of terrorism ever since 9/11. But during the same period did we abandon our mad pursuit of differentiating between the good and the bad terrorists?
General Raheel Sharif emphasises time and again that such a distinction does not exist on his watch. This is a good development but hopefully he will also be able to walk the talk in letter and spirit.
