More confusion than clarity
This ‘foreign policy reset’, spearheaded by the new foreign minister and backed by the new prime minister, has been going on for a while now. It started after the BRICS snub – implying that China, too, is now concerned about our security policy, to sum it up – and played out as Kh Asif reached out to new allies. Yet the contours of this reset are no clearer today than when Asif set off, even though he’s met the Chinese, Russians, Iranians and Turks. Why the hush-hush about the opening up?
A couple of points need clarity. One, how far back is the reset going to go? Will it incorporate just recent (good, bad Taliban) policy or will it be a little more thorough? Or will it just include things we just can’t brush under the carpet anymore? Two, is it just going to be about militant groups and safe havens – things others want — or will it go on to include the more long-term, societal effects of the policy, like much of the society having moved far, far to the right over time? And three, and most importantly, what should be made of the parallel effort to mainstream some of the more radical outfits through the electoral process?
The participation of Milli Muslim League (MML) and Tehreek-e-Labaik Pakistan in Lahore’s NA-120 by-poll, and the number of votes they bagged, was telling. Should be believe, then, that the reset means transforming radical entities into political parties? Some visible tentacles of the so called establishment have admitted to such an experiment, at least. Are the government and establishment on the same page on the matter, then? Or are their positions completely different? Since it was our ‘friends’ that provoked this rethink, have we thought how some of them would feel about this smart idea? As usual, there is more confusion than clarity on a matter of vital national, and international, importance.