Connect with us

South Asia

Pakistan-US Relations: Resettlement or Re-Stalemate

Hareem Aqdas

Published

on

Pakistan-US relations have witnessed a severe decline especially after January 2018. Earlier this month, US Secretary of State, Mr. Mike Pompeo, who was accompanied by Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen Joseph Dunford, stayed in Islamabad for nearly five hours during which he met Prime Minister Imran Khan, Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi, and Chief of the Army Staff Gen Qamar Bajwa in the anticipation of resettling the deteriorating bilateral relations.

During the visit, Pakistan and the United States decided to reset the bilateral ties by giving another shot after the positive initial engagement which resulted in an understanding between the Trump administration and the new Pakistani government on delivering on each other’s expectations.

A positive aura was established during the meeting signaling an encouraging way forward for the relations by both countries. Hopes were paved in finding solutions to the common problems of both countries e.g. Afghanistan. Initially, the goodwill signaled optimism following a press conference by Pakistan’s FM. FM described how “positive” the meeting had been and is sure to bear fruit in future. Hopes were established on matters resolving between the two countries.

It was not long before the situation started to revert. Mr. Pompeo visited New Delhi the very next day after which a joint statement was released at the conclusion of the US-Delhi 2+2 dialogues. The statement made clear that everything Mr. Qureshi had painted in regards to the new set of Pak-US relations was worth no serious consideration. Both Delhi and Washington revealed to “have trained their guns towards Islamabad on the counter-terror front. They held, without vague signals or hidden intentions, Pakistan responsible for spread of terror through proxies. They named groups with Pakistani affiliations and have recalled past events like Mumbai, Uri, Pathankot to point to the alleged plots of terror whose perpetrators need to be brought to the book”. A new series of strategic partnership was also vowed to have began between India and the US to counter the growing military and economic strength of China (and/or Russia) in the region with massive arms trade treaties and other military assistance for each other during the visit.

Pakistan’s Foreign Office denied these allegations quite late- a week after they were presented. The delay helped paint yet another bleak picture on the strength of Pakistan’s foreign standing- giving chance to the critiques to point out Pakistan’s shortcomings in foreign affairs.

In the aforementioned scenario, what strikes the mind is that if Washington was actually serious in helping Pakistan out of the Afghanistan problem and establish fresh start to relations, it should have restrained India’s aggressive design. US had given a surety of security to Pakistan from the Eastern front to let Pakistan focus on stabilizing the Western front in Afghanistan by engaging with the Taliban to harbor a peace process. On the contrary, Washington has sandwiched Pakistan between two hostile neighbors from the east and the west creating a security dilemma or a stalemate for Pakistan both militarily and diplomatically.

Washington was fast to allege Pakistan of leaving terrorist harbors in Afghanistan and not doing action against them but when it had to help Pakistan make sure in achieving victory in Afghanistan (its own interest), it reverted the game by picturing Pakistan as the biggest problem.

Pakistan currently is in no position to create enmity with a regional power- India with the championship of a super power- the US to make it difficult for an economically, politically strained country- Pakistan for the ability to counter it likewise.

A popular notion among the masses of Pakistan is that China or Russia may prove to be better allies to help Pakistan despite the US backing out so prominently. This too is an unreliable dimension since Islamabad’s ties with Moscow are not well enough for Moscow to jump into any military fallout faced by Pakistan in assistance during the foreseeable future.

On the other hand, China, if history is studied, has never set an example of backing Pakistan militarily in the times of need against India. China will never perturb its economic ties with India to help Pakistan out. In this scenario, it is not Pakistan that can determine Chinese or Russian assistance for itself but China and Russia themselves determine how much can they bear for Pakistan keeping their own interests safe.

This grave lesson was not learnt by Pakistan’s government when none of our perceived friends countered Pakistan’s nomination in the FATF grey list by the US. It does not seem to be popular even now when Pakistan is facing a severe strategic threat from both its sides.

Pakistan is facing serious ramifications in its diplomatic as well as strategic arena with the abruption of expected hostility from Delhi and Washington. This is a crucial time where we need to shift our focus towards our foreign policy rather taking a cloak of false ego under the slogan of “Pakistan First” addressing internal matters like the dam fund or tree plantations rendering to be more important.

Pakistan-US bilateral relations are on their lowest ebb in history where vague future prospects are being witnessed. US’s intention to remain significant in the region coupled with its intention to contain China (and/or Russia) in the region has sought it to develop its partnership with India. This partnership has serious implications for Pakistan, foreseeing no future betterment in relations with the US in the short term to midterm time frame. US relations with Pakistan currently are focused more on re-stalemate rather than resettlement.

It is therefore direly vital for Pakistan to shift its focus on severe issues like its foreign standings, diplomacy and international strategic partnerships rather meager internal issues. A wake up call is needed for the government to address this issue on priority and stop living in an age of self-deception that is intentionally promoted at the price of the reality.

Researcher at Strategic Vision Institute, Islamabad and student of International Relations and Politics at Quaid-I-Azam University, Islamabad.

Continue Reading
Comments

South Asia

Similarities between Trump-Modi Policies and their Actions

Published

on

President Donald Trump calls PM Narendra Modi the father of India; according to him he has been successful in combining every section of society like a father combines the whole family through caring for the needs, necessities and reservations of his children. Including praise for PM Modi, President Trump has raised very serious matters for the nations of the world in his recent speeches. Throughout his tenure, President Trump has remained centred on the idea of “American Exceptionalism.” As evident in his statements, he has already expressed in one of his recent speeches that “The future does not belong to globalists, the future belongs to patriots”. He further explained that this is the rise of nationalism and fall of globalism. Though, whatever the ideology guiding President Trump’s statements and strategies it still creates several complexities for the world, especially for weaker developing nations. In the same way, PM Modi has expressed his ideas and thoughts – as influenced by RSS ideology – which are also based on a similar sense of superiority albeit based around a predominantly Hindu inspired nationalism.

Taking into account this idea of America as the saviour of the world -, as evident in its penchant to intervene in any part of the world -the US has created its own definitions what is just and unjust. Likewise, PM Modi’s more hands-on approach to Kashmir and even to a certain extent Gujrat represents a similar approach couched in a sort of ‘saviour’ complex. According to PM Modi, the ancient books of Hinduism give the lesson of humanity throughout the world that it is protected under their responsibility. In this regard, they will work in collaboration with other states who also want to protect the same cause of saving humanity as described by both President Trump and PM Modi during the Howdy-Modi gatherings in United States. Thus, hinting at perhaps a dangerous penchant for a more interventionist approach to world politics.

Now this is psychological rhetoric used by different entities to provide a moral justification for their actions in an attempt to make their actions legal and just in front of a specifically targeted audience. As such this kind of manoeuvring, used by States and individual rulers via looking over the changing global dynamics, is all about gaining interests, power, dominance and influence. There was a period when Narendra Modi was banned in America as well as some other countries of the world. He was banned because of the numerous atrocities, massacres, misconducts and the spread of RSS extremist ideology. He was the central person who was allegedly involved in the massacre of the Babri Masjid in Gujrat, India. He has been an active member of the RSS for a very long period of time. As such he remains famous for his fascist, extremist, hawkish and discriminatory policies imposed on the people of India. These include his harsh policies against the people of Jammu and Kashmir which are glaring proof ofseveral human rights violations.

PM Modi and President Trump have the same ambitions despite the varying differences between the status, development levels, technology, and economies of their respective countries. However, there are numerous similarities within their ideologies, policies and actions as they are mostly inspired by their far-right more conservative electoral bases. Such types of states or individual rulers use beliefs and ideologies for legitimizing their actions. In this regard, United States of America has been practicing these policies and actions within various parts of the world like Palestine, Middle East, Afghanistan. If America is imposing such injustices such a significant share of the world’s population while projecting itself as the saviour of human right violations, then any state with the ability to project power and influence could exploit the situation against the pretext of saving human right violations. As evident, it is this same mentality that has led to the deterioration of the security of various parts of world.

Similarly, Narendra Modi’s ideology has been generating serious issues for the security of South Asia. In this regard, PM Modi along with several other RSS stalwarts have been accused of spreading violence, discrimination and hatred against India’s marginalized communities such as Dalits, Sikhs Christians particularly Muslim and other religious minorities. The recent controversy embroiling the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) is an example of such violent and extremist policies which have already resulted in mass agitations and strikes throughout India. The policies and actions adopted by PM Modi have been the cause of various problems within India as well as in the region including the repeated threats from BJP leaders against Pakistan.

When there are nuclear states being led by such leaders who have already fought several wars over multiple issues, they require a certain maturity, sense of responsibility, rationality and understanding in their behaviours as well as the actions of their rulers. Such kind of statements and behaviours portray a picture of madness or irrationality which can generate various problems for the peace and security of both nations as well as regional stability. Both PM Modi and President Trump would do well to ponder over that together during their forthcoming meetings in India which is considered very important for the strategic partnership of India as well as regional security and stability.

Continue Reading

South Asia

Dysfunctional Government of Pakistan

Rafaqat Khalil

Published

on

The def of successful government is to control defined territories, population, conduct diplomatic relation with other state, succeed in providing peace & stability to their public & monopolize legitimate violence in their territory. While a stateless or failed government can not create peace, law & order for their population, no control over their territory, weak & dependent institution. There will be no economic stability & no control over the distribution of goods. The massive economic violence, warlord’s & unequal distribution of resources make a failed government.

Resent example of weak government is Pakistan. Where disintegration occur, civilian dependent institute, selection on the name of election, ruling of bureaucrat instead of serving, no check & balance system on institute, monopoly on foreign & internal policy, no freedom of expression, demand of right & protest is a crime. Instead of rule of Law, autocracy is on peak.

That’s why this country face major challenges like humanitarian, extremism, sectarianism, violence, poverty, foreign aid budget, enforced disappearance, disease & philanthropic resources. On the slogan of national interest public face insecurity & unsafety. Because interference is on peak, instead of own constitutional duties s/he interfere in dealing of other. When the nondemocratic forces influence the weak democratic institute then the contract between the state & citizen will be weaker. And majority of population will be unpleasure from law & order implementation.

Where does Pakistan stand in term of democracy, freedom, rule of law, independence of Judiciary and sovereignty of parliament? Are we the people of Pakistan is not democratic? Is democracy will not solve our problem like politics of dynasty, personality-oriented politics, presidential and parliamentary form of government, check and balance in legislature, judiciary and executive, power of president and PM, making and amending of constitution?  Procedure of Election and action against rigging and horse trading. The superpower and indigenous conspiracies and its short- and long-term effects? Devolution of power to local government system and participation of women in our politics? Literacy rate and influence of clergy on public?

The genesis of the present situation is that in Pakistan politics has never been based on some specific philosophy, programmed or principles. It has been in negation of all the ingredients of democracy. It has always been confined to prison or personalities. Ever since partition the only motive of alliances has been for personal gain, power and wealth. Political parties are the personal fiefdom of political leaders; scions of interrelated families of Landlords, Pirs, Nawabs, industrialists, business tycoons and Generals. They conspire and intrigue with civil/ military bureaucracy to achieve, retain and perpetuate power.

The historical background of the issue irradiates that our provincial and national politics have been helpless victims of the power hogging syndrome. Whoever reaches the throne, sets about misusing all the power that he can lay his lands on, whether, it is covered by the rules or not. However, the local government was degenerated into an instrument for perpetuating the British Raj. Bureaucracy was imposed on the people’s representatives; Deputy commissioners were the pillars of British Empire. Nothing much changed after independence in the year 1947. Pakistan inherited a highly centralized political system. Even the idea of federation envisaged by the successive reconstitutions was negated by the preponderance of the central government’s power in legislative, financial, administrative and political fields. The ruling classes confirm to the colonial traditions of governing the entire country from a strong center.

Now it’s the basic responsibility of international community, actors, Institutions & nongovernmental organizations to address these issues immediately. Empowering political parties, strengthening constitution, independent & effective judiciary, reviewing a professional military & police service, effective & influential governance, stopping humanitarian and security problem and holding free & fair election. To return from a weak government to a functioning govt. 

Continue Reading

South Asia

Pakistan- Afghanistan- Turkey Trilateral Summits and its implication for the region

Rahat Shah

Published

on

This essay aims to critically explain the Pakistan-Afghanistan-Turkey Trilateral Summits and its implications for the region. These summits were initiated by Turkey to normalize the bilateral relations between Pakistan and Afghanistan. We found that these summits have somehow normalized the relations, but still, there is a need for a formal treaty such as strategic partnership and consensus. The author holds that if both states sign these two treaties, then it will lead them to build a common security community and focus on the positive-sum game, instead of zero. Moreover, it will provide them the opportunity for confidence-building and security reassurance. If they succeed to do so will vital implications for the region. For instance, it will confidently overcome the issue of terrorism which is problematic to the security of the whole region.

Turkey was the first Muslim country that tried to ameliorate Pakistan and Afghanistan’s relations during the post 9/11 decades. Ankara began to hold a presidential summit known as the Pakistan-Afghanistan-Turkey Tripartite Summit in April 2007. Since 1947, the bilateral relations between Islamabad and Kabul have been weakened mainly due to security reasons. The security reason is very diaphanous as the Afghanistan government did not agree to recognize the Durand Line border due to their claim that some part of Pakistan’s Khyber Pakhtoon Khowa province belongs to Afghanistan. In fact, it is an international 2,430-kilometre border that separates both states from each other. The Duran Line represents the name of Henry Mortimer Durand, a foreign secretary of the colonial government of India. He was an official who demarcated the border between Afghanistan and British India after diplomatic negotiations in 1893. However, in 1947, after the independence of Pakistan, this became a security tension between Islamabad and Kabul. Besides, bilateral security issues it is widely believed that the terrorists such as Al-Qaida and Taliban are taking benefit of this border and are easily moving from Afghanistan to Tribal area of Pakistan.

In Sep 2005, due to the threat of terrorism, Islamabad decided to commence the fencing of the border where work was begun in Apr 2007. Nevertheless, this was unacceptable to Afghanistan because they hold the claim that it will weaken the free movement of the Pashtun tribe. The Afghan government further argued that fencing is nothing more than the division of our Pashtoon tribes because the fencing cannot stop terrorism. Both state blame on each other for terrorism as it is noted that “the Afghan government has been blaming Pakistan for harboring key Taliban leaders on its soil and providing them with sanctuaries to stage war against Afghan forces and their foreign counterparts. However, Pakistan has often rejected the allegations and has claimed that it is extending support to the Afghan peace process”. On the other side Pakistan claims that India is using Afghan soil for terrorists’ activities against Pakistan.

However, Turkey tried to eschew any possible conflict between Pakistan and Afghanistan but it bore no fruits. As in May 2007, the Afghan forces tore the fencing, which consequently led both side troops to serious conflicts. Same On 5 May 2017, an armed skirmish occurred after Afghan forces attacked a Pakistani census team in Chaman, in Pakistan near the border with Afghanistan. At least 15 people died on both sides in the immediate border clash. It is one of a series of similar border-related incidents between the two countries. This plight confirmed that there are misunderstandings and a deficit of trust between both states. Even both states were informally agreed in 2007 in Turkey during Trilateral summits that both will respect the territorial integrity and will not interfere in the domestic affair of each other. Given this, Turkish President Abdullah Gul again invited the two countries in the same year to resolve the issue and promised to hold a summit every year until relations between the two countries were normalized. Further, in the second summit, the three states decided to work on shared military exercises and to share intelligence information on terrorism. Turkey also assured that both states need to build contact between their parliaments which are essential for trust-building. With the passage of time these summits somehow brought the both states at conclusion to avoid any possible conflicts and interference in each other domestic affairs but it still need formal proper agreements for positive results which are important for the whole region.

Implication for the region

Now, for instance, these trilateral summits succeed, then what will be the implication for the region? The first and foremost implication will be the resolution of Afghan’s issue itself. For instance, if both Pakistan and Afghanistan get agree for strategic partnership and flexible consensus, then both can build common security where they will think for win-win security cooperation instead of zero-sum. The common security will build trust between them as the international system is anarchic and no one knows the intention of other states, especially the presence of India in Afghanistan is hideous for Pakistan. The flexible consensus will bring both states at one page to mutually formulate the policies that serve best their specific interests.

The second most significant advantage will be if both states build common security then will surely overcome terrorism which is not only problematical to the security of both states but as well as to the whole region. For instance, terrorism has no boundary and no religion which means it can continue its activities anywhere they want. One of the Vulnerable region is the Central Asian Republican States which are strategically vital regions for the all great and major powers due to natural resources if the terrorism in Afghanistan rooted out then there will be no future threat to this region.

Suggestion

There is no doubt that Turkey is working to normalize relations between Pakistan and Afghanistan, but it needs to change its current policy based on informal processes because formal agreements are needed. In short, only spoken agreements are not enough Turkey should convince both states for strategic partnership and flexible consensus which is very important for the security of the whole region. The strategic partnership which is rival to relic power politics as the strategic partnership provides the opportunity of the win-win situation instead of zero sums. Where the flexible consensus is important due to its ability to bring both states policymaker at the same page to formulate mutual beneficial policies and agree to support a decision in the best interest of the whole group or common goal. 

Continue Reading

Publications

Latest

South Asia40 mins ago

Similarities between Trump-Modi Policies and their Actions

President Donald Trump calls PM Narendra Modi the father of India; according to him he has been successful in combining...

Eastern Europe3 hours ago

South Caucasus’ Role will be overshadowed by the US-Russia Competition Elsewhere in Eurasia

Recent geopolitical developments in Eurasia indicate that the South Caucasus’ relative importance could be overshadowed by West-Russia competition over Belarus,...

Reports5 hours ago

Uganda Can Create Higher Labor Productivity Jobs by Improving Trade and Business Environment

Uganda’s economy needs to gradually create more jobs for its fast-growing and youth population. To accelerate economic growth and drive...

Hotels & Resorts7 hours ago

Hyatt Expands Presence in Turkey with Plans for Hyatt Regency Izmir Istinye Park

Hyatt Hotels Corporation announced today that a Hyatt affiliate has entered into a franchise agreement with Orjin Konaklama Yönetim Hizmetleri...

Europe9 hours ago

‘Westlessness’: Shaping Anew the EU’s Power

The endurance of a political order cannot be permanently measured in the absence of any instrument, neither can it be...

EU Politics11 hours ago

Future EU-UK Partnership: Q&A on the negotiating directives

What has the Council adopted today? The General Affairs Council has today adopted a decision, as expected, to authorise the...

Eastern Europe13 hours ago

Defeat of Azerbaijan Began in Khojaly, Nagorno-Karabakh

Azerbaijanis and their PR supporters will begin their yearly media blitz about events that took place in the town of...

Trending