ISLAMABAD: Two striking developments have amply reflected the positive outcome of the apparent civ-mil understanding, and prudence of across-the-board political leadership to show consensus when it comes to critical domestic matters or key foreign policy issues.
In August, President Donald Trump delivered an alarming speech outlining his aggressive policy for South Asia in which he threatened to strike what he called safe havens of terrorists inside Pakistan. He accused Islamabad of having such sanctuaries of terrorists and harbouring such groups.
Pakistan loudly protested, and rightly so and vehemently rejected the strategy in unequivocal terms. Subsequent visits of Foreign Minister Khawaja M Asif and Interior Minister Ahsan Iqbal to the United States reinforced this rejection. They told senior American officials that what they have alleged was totally unacceptable and they have to change their mind.
This was followed by a four-hour visit of Secretary Rex Tillerson to Islamabad in which he held talks with Pakistan’s top civil and military leaders on one table. It was a great spectacle as their assembling under one roof for discussion with the top US diplomat gave an unambiguous message that all of them are on the same page. This was a departure from the past when such visitors had been holding separate meetings with civilian and military leaders, creating unnecessary confusion. Naturally before Tillerson’s trip, Pakistan’s civ-mil leadership jointly firmed the strategy to speak with one voice.
This led to a somewhat change in the American policy, maybe temporarily, from what Trump had threatened, which is reflected from what Tillerson has told a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing.
Now, he has stated that Pakistan is willing to target terrorists if provided information and Washington plans to give Islamabad the opportunity to prove it. This is what Pakistan has always emphasized that it was more than ready to take care of any terrorists if the US furnishes information about them.
“Pakistanis have indicated — if we provide them information they will act. We’re going to have to test that, give them an opportunity to do so. So, we are going to enter into an effort to have greater sharing of certain intelligence information,” the Secretary said. “… the conversation with the Pakistani government is for them to recognise that they will be one of the greatest beneficiaries of a successful peace process in Afghanistan.”
He said that Pakistan had two very unstable borders, with Afghanistan and India, so the message he delivered in Islamabad was: “You have to begin to create greater stability inside your country and that means denying safe haven to any of these organisations that launch attacks from your territory”.
At the hearing, American lawmakers warned that if the United States insisted on having the option of first strike against a nuclear-armed nation, it could send a wrong signal to other nations with nuclear weapons. They particularly mentioned India and Pakistan, two nuclear nations with strained relations.
Had there been any blatant difference of opinion between the government and the army over the response to Washington in the wake of announcement of Trump’s South Asia strategy, the US would have exploited it to its advantage as it has always done. The credit of demonstrating complete harmony and oneness goes to Pakistan’s leadership. During its meeting with Tillerson, the civilian and military sides forcefully expounded Pakistan’s approach to Trump’s policy. This sent a clear message to Washington.
The second development related to the rare consensus that the parliamentary leaders of all sides hammered out within a few hours on the constitutional amendment to hold the general elections as per schedule after the present government will exhaust its five-year tenure in June next. They knew that the upcoming polls would have been delayed had they not worked out the agreement.
Most political parties generally hardly agree on any national issue and keep on lethally slamming each other for mileage. Their unique unanimity on the constitutional amendment left no doubt anywhere that the political forces want the forthcoming elections on time.
By agreeing on the essential constitutional change, they also explicitly voiced their pronounced disapproval to the idea of a technocrats’ government or extension of the mandated tenure of the future caretaker setup that will be put together as the present administration will complete its term.
Both the innovations – technocrats’ government and extension of the stay of a caretaker administration – are alien to the Constitution. This is what most political parties have pointed out more than once. In fact, these proposals are loved by the job-seekers -- a troika comprising some retired army officers, a few TV anchors and rejected politicians – who think they will produce wonders if given a chance although they have been proved dud in the past. This entire lot has no prospect whatsoever to get even a respectable number of votes in any elections and therefore, keeps conspiring for high official berths.
Both the developments happened amid heightened political polarization and reports of civ-mil tensions. But they quashed the conspiracy theories that the political players lack the capacity to agree on anything regardless of its significance because of their unbridgeable differences.