- US diplomat Wells frank to the point of brutality
US Assistant Secretary of State Alice Wells did not spring any surprises while talking to the press in Islamabad on Tuesday, but she did say things that showed the divergences of US and Pakistani perceptions. As these perceptions seem to coincide with Indian claims, it is only logical that US and Indian policies should grow closer, and that US and Pakistani policies should move apart. One of the most urgent questions was about whether the US saw Pakistan as being in compliance with the Financial Action Task Force as far as its Action Plan went. Ms Wells said that there had been some positive steps, but that it would be FATF itself that determined how far compliance had been made.
As for peace with India and the effects on that of the Indian elections, she said that Pakistan’s implementation of the National Action Plan would determine the prospects for peace, and that Pakistan would have to ensure that use of force remained the prerogative of the state, and that its soil was not used against other countries. She also said that there was no evidence available to the US for Indian use of Afghanistan for interference in Pakistan, or of Indian funding of the Pakhtun Tahaffuz Movement, a dramatic claim made after the press conference by the DG ISPR. Ambassador Wells did not say anything about the recent US-Taliban talks, which had been the main purpose of her trip abroad. Perhaps she did not need to, and had given enough food for thought to her interlocutors here.
Perhaps the indisputable takeaway from her comments is the need for officials, both elected and permanent, to stop fantasising, and assuming that others will accept anything other than facts. Those who look to US support should realise that it will not be forthcoming on the assumption that Pakistani claims are true. The related development, of China making it known that it will no longer block Maulana Masood Azhar’s designation as a terrorist, should convince policymakers that even Pakistan’s friends cannot go on refusing to accept reality. Policy must be based on reality, claims on solid evidence, not on the say-so of any individuals or institutions. Interests may guide nations, but interests exist in the real world, not anyone’s imagination.