Our foreign policy

Who decides?

While visitors form the US, like the CENTCOM Chief General James Mattis and Special Envoy to Afghanistan Marc Grossman were told to stay away, Foreign Minister Hina Khar has been able to wrangle a meeting with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in London on the sidelines of a conference on Somalia. However, apart from exchange of platitudes and a bland assurance from Hillary Clinton that Pakistan was too important for her country to turn its back on, relations between Washington and Islamabad remain frozen.

Ms Clinton wants a resumption of a full range of formal contacts with Islamabad once the parliament completes the review of ties between the two countries. No one knows when the review will actually take place. Officially, it is on hold till the Senate elections due early next month.

Islamabad is in no hurry for the so-called review as the real powers behind the throne would like Washington to stew in its own juice for the time being. The perception, no matter how misplaced, is that the US needs us more than we need the US.

The military would not budge unless a formal apology for the Salala incident which took place last November along the Durand Line and in which24 Pakistani soldiers were killed by US forces. Washington, despite admitting its mistake and repeated Pakistani demands, is loath to apologise. Even if such an apology was forthcoming on the lines President Obama has sent to the Afghan president on burning of the Holy Quran by American troops, inexorable damage to relations has already been done.

US-Pakistan relations have been on the skids for more than a year now. The rot had started much earlier but it became more evident after the CIA contractor Raymond Davis was arrested for killing two Pakistani citizens in virtual cold blood January last year. It reached its nadir after the killing of Osama bin Laden by US Navy SEALS at Abbottabad in May.

There is an obvious disconnect between what the civilians really want should be Pakistan’s foreign policy and the military’s world view and its peculiar strategic paradigm. The ruling coalition is weak and a majority of the parliamentary opposition too subservient to assert themselves. The review, whenever it takes place, is unlikely to break any new ground.

As if to ensure that the parliament does not deviate from the officially certified truth, a pressure group – the so-called Defence of Pakistan Council – largely composed of religious zealots, members of banned outfits and out of job politicians, has cropped up from nowhere. It’s anti-US, anti-democracy and pro-jihadist agenda is quite blatant and transparent.

The Council’s leading lights include Maulana Sami-ul-Haq, Hafiz Saeed and Mualana Ludhianvi who are members of banned outfits now operating under different labels. In unison with the quintessential ideologue of the jihadists General (retired) Hamid Gul, they spare no moment to spread venom against Satanic America and the Indian enemies. The Balochistan resolution moved by a little known US Congressman, apart from waking up the federal government from its deep slumber, has provided grist to the mills of these elements.

Instead of taking stock of the criminal neglect of Balochistan by successive regimes, the issue is being dubbed as a diabolical conspiracy by the US administration to pressurise Islamabad to fall in line. The government has announced amnesty for the recalcitrant Baloch nationalists and has proposed an All Parties Conference on the issue. But it is too little and too late, there are few takers.

Ironically, it is the Congress resolution that has bought the gravity of the Balochistan issue back into focus. It is a shame that despite the advent of democracy and paying lip service to the plight of the hapless people of the province, nothing has been done on the ground to alleviate their hardships. While its inept and corrupt provincial leaders conveniently look the other way, Balochistan continues to be controlled by the security and intelligence apparatus.

In a sense, it is a continuum of Musharraf’s rule in the province. Ironically, the former dictator and his rubber-stamp prime minister both have absolved themselves of the ghastly and cold-blooded murder of Akbar Bugti at the hands of the military.

The question that begs an answer is whether the civilian government is really so weak and inept, or, is it simply taking the path of least resistance in order to survive? The Memogate affair is symptomatic of the thin ice it is treading upon.

Even if there is little or no truth in the maverick Mansoor Ijaz’s testimony against Husain Haqqani or rather against “the boss” (the president, of course) it does not put the military, and for that matter the civilian government, in a good light. General Kayani and his ISI Chief General Shuja Pasha have submitted to the apex court that the memo is a reality.

A beleaguered and weak government’s hapless ambassador to the US desperately appealing to its patron state for help to save its tottering hold on power from a meddlesome army. Obviously, all this is conjecture till the Memo Commission is investigating the matter. But inexorable damage has already been done.

With no smoking gun, perhaps the matter will fizzle out for lack of proof. However, is it not time to ponder why successive civilian governments feel so harassed by the military and ultimately fall victim to its interventionist policies.

The present military dispensation is ostensibly the least interventionist and the ruling coalition on the surface is meticulously careful not to alienate it. Still relations between the military leadership and the president and the prime minister are hardly cordial.

Perhaps, if the government had delivered on vital issues like governance, economic management and was willing to bring some transparency in its dealings, it will not have to survive merely on its wits. But even if it had delivered, would it have been allowed to reach out to India, cut a possible deal on Kashmir and end the present impasse with the US. Historically, with the military being considered to be the sole arbiter of the national interest, the answer is not hard to predict.

In the past, even governments that delivered on the economy and governance were shown the door when they deviated from the officially certified truth. Hence, to expect Hina Khar and the rest stop reading from the given script in the near future is like asking for the moon. Perhaps, a general election on the watch of a civilian government – another first if it actually happens – would bring the elusive dream of civilians asserting themselves somewhat closer to realisation.

The writer is Editor, Pakistan Today