And how it affects Pakistan’s relations with the US
The relationship between Pakistan and the US, called “the deadly embrace” by area specialist and author Bruce Riedel, has led to periods of severe tension between the two countries. The last one starting from the Abbottabad operation was sufficiently prolonged. The relations were being recently described as ‘stable’. After the Sharif-Obama meeting these are being characterised as a “complicated”. State Department spokesman John Kirby said the US still wanted this relationship to grow stronger. It seems much will depend on how efficiently Pakistan performs certain tasks assigned to it. It seems President Obama has fully explained what ‘do more’ implies.
Two of the issues where pressure is particularly strong are Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal and its policy regarding some of the terrorist networks. Foreign Secretary Aizaz Chaudhry has talked about mounting pressure from unspecified ‘world powers’ on nuclear issues. Pakistan defends its ‘Full Spectrum Deterrence’ doctrine, on the ground that this was the only credible defence against India’s Cold Start doctrine. No one can challenge Pakistan’s right to acquire adequate means for its defence. However, these have to be commensurate with the country’s meager resources and must not be seen to be squeezing highly vital sectors like education, health and social development. Pakistan is also within its right to demand non-discriminatory access to civil nuclear technology.
In the joint statement Nawaz Sharif expressed resolve to take effective action against United Nations-designated terrorist individuals and entities. The UN declared JuD a terrorist network and Hafiz Saeed a terrorist way back in 2008. Both continue to be free and active. In 2010 the Haqqani Network was put in the category of terrorist entities. The Network continued to operate from NW for years and has reportedly relocated to other agencies after Operation Zarb-e-Azb. More than a week after Nawaz Sharif’s return from Washington, there is still no action against any of them. This would promote the perception that it is not the Prime Minister but someone else who has the authority to take decision on these issues.
