Regional peace: the American way

The civil and military leadership of Pakistan jointly met with US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson on Tuesday. Though no immediate tangible results from this interaction have emerged regarding any change or flexibility in the announced US policy on Afghanistan and South Asia, the fact that both sides agreed to keep the process of engagement going can be safely concluded as a positive development. Indications are that US Defence Secretary James Mattis will also be visiting Pakistan later this year. In diplomacy, engagement is the name of the game.

The decision by our civilian and the military leadership to interact with the visiting dignitary was a well thought out and commendable strategy aimed to send a loud and clear message to their interlocutor that they are on the same page with regard to the position taken by Pakistan on the new US policy, while being fully committed to cooperate in counterterror efforts. The opportunity was also well utilised to negate US allegations of safe havens for terrorists in Pakistan and reminding the US secretary of the role that Pakistan has played in dealing with terrorism as a front-line state and the sacrifices we have rendered in men and material in this regard.

Prime Minister Shahid Khaqan Abbasi and our military leaders reportedly also dwelt at length on the need for resolving the Kashmir dispute, Indian atrocities in Occupied Kashmir and Indian involvement in acts of terrorism in Pakistan. Though the US secretary of state only confined his reaction to saying that the US would encourage bilateral efforts between the two to resolve the issues between them,  from the Pakistani perspective the opportunity to broach the subject in itself was worth the effort.

The US secretary of state reiterated the need for implementation of the new US strategy and repeated what he has been saying about American expectations from Pakistan in dealing with alleged safe havens on our soil. At the same time, he reportedly said: “Pakistan is important to our joint goals of providing peace and security to the region and providing for greater economic relationship.” Who does not want peace and security in the region? Pakistan would be the last country to wish otherwise. 

However, what the US needs to understand is that peace and security in the region is not only contingent upon resolving the conflict in Afghanistan and eliminating terrorist outfits there but is also dependent to a large extent on the resolution of the Kashmir issue and efforts to stop India from fomenting instability in Pakistan. If the US needs Pakistan’s partnership in establishing peace and security in the region it will have to pay due consideration to our strategic interests in the region as well as our security imperatives.

Partnerships are built on the basis of commonality and mutuality of interests and by creating space for the other partner to do its part of the partnership role. The US will have to trust its partner and believe in the Pakistani position that it had taken indiscriminate action against terrorist outfits including the Haqqanis, by destroying terrorist infrastructure in North Waziristan; and that no safe havens for terrorists exist on Pakistani soil. Pakistan’s armed forces, intelligence outfits and law-enforcement agencies have rendered unparalleled sacrifices in fighting the terrorists. Pakistan has also offered to the US that it would pinpoint the places where it was thought those alleged safe havens had existed so that action could be taken against them. There could not be a more honest commitment than this to vindicate our position.

Peace and security in the region cannot be ensured the American way. The new US policy on Afghanistan and South Asia is a perfect recipe to aggravate the security situation in the region, particularly in Afghanistan. US drone attacks in Afghanistan and the border region between Pakistan and Afghanistan during the last week and the retaliatory attacks by IS and the Taliban – particularly the one on a military base in Kandahar – are ranting testimonies to this fact.

The US needs to recognise the ground realities in Afghanistan. It has not been able to beat back the Taliban with all the military might at the disposal of the US-Nato troops in the last 16 years. The Taliban still control 40 percent of the territory of the country and their ability to strike against Afghan security forces and US installations at will remains intact. The new US military offensive will not produce different results.

Assigning a greater role to India in Afghanistan is also a big mistake. India might be friendly to the sitting Afghan government but it is not acceptable to the Taliban against whom it has been siding with the Northern Alliance. They will not at any cost accept the new equation. So by envisaging a role for India, the US has added another irritant to the ongoing conflict.

Indian role in Afghanistan is also inimical to the strategic interests of Pakistan. Indian RAW and Afghan intelligence NDS have a proven nexus as far as backing of the TTP is concerned; a fact unravelled by Latifullah Mehsud, the TTP leader who was captured by Nato forces in Afghanistan in September 2013. India is also involved in supporting insurgency elsewhere in Pakistan. The case of Kulbhushan Jhadav, the Indian naval officer captured in Balochistan, is proof of that. Pakistan has already handed over dossiers on this to the UN secretary general and the US leadership. Under the circumstances, how can Pakistan accept Indian involvement and presence in Afghanistan, which it rightly believes would afford greater opportunities to India to undermine Pakistan’s strategic interests?

Unilateral action on the part of the US and high-handed tactics to impose its will on the countries of the region is bound to have a boomerang effect and consign the region to unending instability and conflict. The sooner this reality dawns on the US, the better.

The writer is a freelance contributor. Email: ashpak10@gmail.com