- The government needs to be clearheaded
There has been a lot of euphoria about Prime Minister Imran Khan’s US visit, but it cannot escape notice that nothing really has changed: the relationship is still as transactional as ever. Nothing illustrates this more than the US State Department’s approval of a sale of maintenance parts for Pakistan’s F16 fleet. The equation is quite clear: the USA wants certain things that Pakistan can give, and Pakistan wants certain things that the USA can give. The USA wants Pakistan to help bring the Taliban to the negotiation table with the Afghan government. Pakistan wants the USA to provide it defence equipment and training, a return to the halcyon days of being a major non-NATO ally.
Anything else should be taken with a large pinch of salt, with the clear understanding that the USA is represented by Donald Trump. It should be clear to Pakistan that his commitments are not worth anything more than temporary needs; there is none of the ‘my-word-is-my-bond’ firmness about him. One need only see how he tore up the nuclear deal with Iran, and threw the entire area into further turmoil. He managed to provide an example with his claim that Narendra Modi wanted mediation on Kashmir, something which had Mr Khan in the throes of joy, but which the Indians rebutted strongly and sharply, and right on the same day. Pakistan should be careful about fulfilling any commitments it might have made, because there is no certainty that the USA will carry out its own.
The relationship is not an equal one. That was shown by the failure of the visit to achieve any of the economic goals that were being held out before the public by enthusiasts before the visit: no Free Trade Agreement, no investment, not even any promises about future US behaviour in such fora as the IMF or the FATF. This inevitably raises queries about the need for PM’s Finance Adviser Hafeez Sheikh, SBP Governor Reza Baqir and PM’s Commerce Adviser Razak Dawood on the visit. However, they should not be blamed, for it should not be forgotten that they would only succeed if the USA was inclined to take the relationship beyond the transactional. Commercial and economic ties are such that they bind nations more permanently together, than occasional one-off transactions.
