Why America’s ‘acting tough rhetoric’ is a hard sell in Pakistan?

It is a tried and tested approach that has failed multiple times before

U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson in a recent statement said that Pakistan “could lose territory to terrorists” if it didn’t take credible action against those operating in Afghanistan. Apparently, this extraordinary statement comes as part of Washington’s new approach of shifting between a soft rhetoric and tough posturing towards Pakistan to extract cooperation from the country. Moreover, this approach has also taken shape in the form of US’s cuts on military and economic funding toward Pakistan.

The diplomatic chaos that Trump’s leadership has caused domestically and abroad is all set to approach Pakistan’s shores with an uninformed policy of ignoring rapidly changing political and security realities of the South Asian region. Trump may have toed India’s line of handing Pakistan a charge sheet of a state that sponsors terrorism but it is impossible that Trump’s loud aggressive rhetoric can actually divert Pakistan’s policy course.

A few months ago, a group of U.S senators during their visit to Pakistan not only lauded its counterterrorism efforts but also noted that Islamabad’s diplomatic and security assistance remains significant to achieving peace and security in the region, particularly in Afghanistan. This statement, particularly from Senator McCain, appreciating Pakistan’s role and political clout to achieve peace in Afghanistan and beyond marks a break with Washington’s recent official approach of putting Pakistan under the radar and sidelining its role as far as the regional security issues are concerned. If anything, McCain’s pragmatic posturing and President Trump’s hostile bravado point towards two different camps in Washington that adhere to dissimilar foreign policy choices when it comes to dealing and defining Pakistan’s role and partnership with the U.S.

Any future reconciliation in Afghanistan is not possible minus the support and cooperation of Afghan Taliban which Pakistan, as well as its allies in China and Russia, is aware of

More importantly, what a large pool of policymakers in Washington fails to comprehend and realise is that Islamabad has long learned and mastered the art of effective diplomacy when it comes to responding to the US’s hostile policy behavior towards the country. From Islamabad’s perspective, preparing for such typical periodic hostilities is part of the historic bilateral partnership between both countries, that not only reinforces Pakistan’s long-held credence of relying on its own security infrastructure – be it state or non-state – but also underpins the country’s strategic thinking in which the US remains an unreliable partner.

Irrespective of the extent of pressure from Washington, Pakistan is well prepared to muddle through this latest disruptive phase in bilateral relations. However, the continuing stir of such situations has only forced Pakistan into looking for other partners to share the region’s security burden, particularly in Afghanistan. Now the strategic thinking in Islamabad is more focused on replacing US influence and political clout in Afghanistan with China, which Pakistan considers a reliable and dependable partner. It is plausible to argue that Pakistan’s strategic thinking has come out of the phase where America’s presence in or withdrawal from Afghanistan should leave implications for Pakistan. Rather, Pakistan has been preparing for both situations by partnering with Beijing and Moscow. From this perspective, it should not come as a surprise that the Afghan Taliban have been regarded as assets, both in Beijing and Moscow.

The rise of the Islamic State in Afghanistan is not in the interest of Afghan Taliban, Russia, China or Pakistan. Perhaps, besides cooperation, the resurgence of a common enemy has left no option for all these stakeholders. The recent reports that Russia may be arming Taliban in Afghanistan could very well be true, for Moscow faces far greater ISIS Challenge than any other state in the region. Therefore, any future reconciliation in Afghanistan is not possible minus the support and cooperation of Afghan Taliban which Pakistan, as well as its allies in China and Russia, is aware of.

Now this situation leaves Washington in a very peculiar state. If the country prolongs its stay in Afghanistan, then it would have to make substantial financial commitments to Kabul which appear unlikely with Trump’s trade and economy driven foreign policy approach. Moreover, if Trump’s team is looking for a quick solution in Pak-Afghan region by tightening Pakistan’s bolts, then it’s a failed approach in the making, for such consideration doesn’t achieve anything besides reducing the US’s strategic influence in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Trump’s official policy of hostility towards Pakistan is likely to damage American interests more than Pakistan. While Trump is hurling threats against Pakistan, it is alarming to note that the US embassy in Afghanistan still lacks necessary staff due to Trump’s recent downsizing and rejection of the State Department’s role in the country’s foreign policy.

The deepening divisions in Washington regarding the debate on formulating an effective policy towards Pakistan do not bode well for the US’s own interests in the South Asian region. From here onward, it will be an uphill challenge for Trump’s cabinet when it comes to restoring the country’s previous role of offering leadership in the Pak-Afghan region, for neither Pakistan nor its new allies are going to wait or adhere to U.S.’s dictations.