Home / Chair's Blog / Dialogue of the unequal!

Dialogue of the unequal!

Pakistan-US strategic dialogue is important from the point of view of contents; it covers almost all essential domains. It is mutually beneficial to both sides. However, every round of dialogue gets overshadowed by American obsessions with Pakistan-India relations and Pakistan’s nuclear programme. The US perception has it that onus of maintaining good Pakistan-India relations rests on Pakistan; and that irrespective of its strategic calculus with India, Pakistan should unilaterally rollback its nuclear programme. American media is often keen to link Pakistan’s nuclear programme with its external debts and makes offers for bartering Pakistani-nukes with write off of these debts.

Interestingly, in Pakistan’s strategic calculus, these two do not have a linear relationship. Pakistan’s unusual Bomb-Economy relationship was first articulated by the then foreign minister Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, way back in 1965: “…if India got it (atom bomb) then we shall have to eat grass and get one, or buy one, of our own.” Ever since national consensus has stood by and upheld this notion—like a gospel obligation.

During the recently concluded sixth ministerial-level Pakistan-US Strategic Dialogue, Pakistan’s nuclear programme and economy attracted the maximum attention of delegates. The US tried to arm twist Pakistan to reduce its nuclear arsenal. However, Pakistan firmly expressed the resolve by not accepting any curbs on it saying America must show “greater understanding” of its security concerns in South Asia. In his arguments, secretary of state John Kerry erred by drawing parallel between strategic environment between the US and Russian, and India-Pakistan relations. Kerry would be better placed if he equates current Pakistan-India relations with peak cold war tensions between the US and USSR—the tripwire and massive retaliation days.

A day later, during an interaction at the Council on Foreign Relations, Adviser to Prime Minister on foreign affairs Sartaj Aziz ruled out any change in Pakistan’s nuclear policy. “In terms of the safety and security of nuclear weapons command and control system, we have made outstanding progress. Globally, all the international agencies and the US have acknowledged that Pakistan has developed a very good system for the safety for export control, and command and control system…But the [American] concern remains. Our nuclear capacity is a deterrent against Indian capacity. Deterrent is not a static concept. It is a dynamic concept. If your adversary goes on expanding its capacity, then you have to respond,” he said. “We keep insisting in our relationship that India is the independent variable in this. We are the dependent variable. So if India were to restrain and US would not increase its strategic and conventional imbalance between the two countries, then our task would become easier.” Aziz aptly argued.

From economic perspective, Pakistan can’t even afford this strategic and conventional imbalance with India. Menace of terrorism is not biggest threat to Pakistan’s security but India’s increasing strategic and conventional imbalance in the South Asian region is the real challenge. Aziz conceded that the nuclear issue was one of the areas of differences between the US and Pakistan. In the joint statement, the United States and Pakistan have called for a peaceful settlement of the India-Pakistan dispute over Kashmir, and urged all parties in the region to act with “maximum restraint” for the reduction of tensions.

On its part, Pakistan has sought nuclear mainstreaming of Pakistan. In this context, Sartaj Aziz argued: “Our engagement on non-proliferation and strategic stability will continue and Pakistan hopes to see greater US understanding of Pakistan’s security concerns and its desire to contribute actively as a mainstream nuclear power.” Pakistan has said that it will not accept any unilateral curbs on its nuclear programme and that any reduction should apply to India as well and the US should also consider its concerns on the growing conventional weapons disparity. Foreign office has issued a statement in which Aziz has “impressed upon the United States not to contribute to strategic imbalance in South Asia by helping India”.

A day later, back home in Islamabad, Finance Minister Ishaq Dar supplemented the voice: “We will not roll back our nuclear programme even if our debts swell to $100 trillion dollars,” dismissing outright Western media reports that suggest Islamabad could barter its nuclear arsenal for dollars. “We did not start this [nuclear] programme to roll it back,” Dar told the Senate. “This is a programme of our security, and it is a national responsibility to protect it…All political parties of Pakistan share the ownership of our nuclear programme.” he added. He also referred to a 2008 article in Wall Street Journal headlined ‘Let’s Buy Pakistan’s Nukes’ in which the author asked Western donors to agree on a $100 billion economic package in exchange for eliminating Pakistan’s nuclear stockpile. “This will never happen,” Dar said emphatically. He mentioned another article which suggested the ever-ballooning debt may lead Pakistan to compromise on its national security assets.

Finance minister painted a rosy picture of Pakistan’s national economy. “A turnaround has taken place today, and our next target is growth.” Dar’s hour-long speech in the Senate failed to earn him appreciation from the upper House as opposition remained sceptical about the cited debt figures. According to the minister, the value of foreign loans received by the government during the last three years stood at $20.8 billion out of which it repaid debt of $12.9 billion. Dar said that the average cost of borrowings of $20.8 billion stood at 1.62% in 2013, 1.72% in 2014 and 1.92% in 2015; however, he skipped the borrowing cost of dollar-denominated Euro Bonds that the government floated at extremely high rates in the range of 7.25% to 8.25%.

Pakistan’s economy was also a subject of Strategic dialogue, both sides expressed their conviction that a robust, long-term bilateral relationship remains critical to regional and international security and prosperity. And that, the United States and Pakistan have a shared and enduring interest in Pakistan’s continued economic growth and prosperity. Delegates acknowledged the importance of sustaining cooperation on shared interests through US civilian assistance, in line with the intent and spirit of the infamous legislation known as “Kerry-Lugar-Berman” act.

American side commended the steps Pakistan has taken to implement an economic reform agenda, which has advanced Pakistan’s macroeconomic stability and improved growth, including the government’s commitment to complete the set of home grown reforms and hoped that continued reforms will make Pakistan more economically competitive and attractive for foreign investment. Both sides agreed that the modernization of Pakistan’s economy through better technology, improved business climate, entrepreneurship, enhanced worker rights, and opportunities for women will drive the country’s economic growth.

Most of the factors, which determine a good economic health are poorly addressed in Pakistan. The human development report yearly issued by United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) shows Pakistan at a lower level; 146 out of 187, countries. Also, there has been persistent low per capita income rate. From 2008 to 2015, the average growth has been around 3.5 percent, which is quite low—certainly not an enviable benchmark. The last five years of Pakistan’s economy were highly inflationary. This was a major hurdle in the way of development. Rather than attracting, foreign direct investment (FDI), even local Pakistani investors left the country, in numbers, for investing in neighbouring countries.

Both, nuclear programme spanning full spectrum deterrence and robust economy, are vitally important to the existence of state and well being of the people of Pakistan. Even though economy is improving, it needs to be looked at from all aspects, and above all, unless requisite structural reforms are put in place, state of economy shall continue to be unstable.

About admin

Check Also

Elusive Afghan Peace: Between Fire and Ceasefire

In an interesting development while Afghan government announced four days cease fire on Eid eve, Taliban refused to assume a cease fire posture and took their operations to Kabul, at least notionally, where they fired rockets on Presidential palace; though rockets missed the mark. The ensuing hours-long battle involving insurgents’ rocket attacks and military airstrikes ended with the death of two insurgents. “Two attackers were involved. The enemy was firing mortars,” General Murad Ali Murad, commander of Kabul´s garrison, told a press conference. Taliban assault coincided with President Ashraf Ghani’s conditional offer of a three-month ceasefire on first day of Eid. If Americans are looking for good news from the battlefront, then Afghanistan is not the place to look. Taliban are having success after success against the best equipped army in the world. District Faryab has fallen, and fate of over 100 Afghan troops hangs in balance; just miles from Kabul, battle is raging in Ghazni with predictions of its fall. Americans had been begging for Eid ceasefire during three rounds of their direct talks with the Taliban. Afghan government has also been contacting the local leadership for the ceasefire. Some Muslim states and other countries had also approached Taliban for accepting ceasefire proposal. Earlier reports had Taliban in control of the bulk of Ghazni city and surrounding districts on the outskirts. While the Interior Minister was claiming that Taliban were being pushing back to just small pockets of resistance. The Taliban, by contrast, maintain that they remain in control of most of the city. US military statements, unsurprisingly, continue to downplay what they called an “inconsequential fight”, saying they view the Taliban in the area as “isolated and desperate,” and insist that control of the city remains with the government. NATO’s command in Afghanistan has been intentionally misleading the public about the status of seven of Ghazni’s districts. Three additional districts have also been overrun by the Taliban. Resolute Support claimed these seven districts were under government control. In reality, the Taliban physically controlled the terrain while the Afghan government operated them remotely from Ghazni City. Battle for Ghazni has been quite fierce. Over 100 security force members were killed during a recent Taliban attack. The city hospital was reported overcrowded with hundreds of wounded people and dozens of bodies and people desperately searching for relatives among the dead and wounded. The International Committee of the Red Cross said it was providing dressing packages and oral and intravenous medicine to treat wounded at the provincial hospital. The ICRC also sent fresh water and electricity generators for trauma surgeries and delivered material for the management of remains. The ICRC is organizing emergency water supplies by trucks to cover the needs of about 18,000 people. “They were facing severe shortage of food and drinking water and the power supply”. Fleeing citizens reported. A humanitarian crisis may just be in the making. In the Faryab province, the Afghan forces surrendered after a 48 hour siege; the Afghan Army base in Ghormach District was surrendered outright to the Taliban. Security forces ran out of ammunition and badly needed reinforcements, which never came. Government troops apparently had no choice but to give up. Over 40 surviving troops were taken prisoner in the surrender. For the second time in the week, Taliban insurgents attacked and overran an Afghan Army base in the country’s north, this time in Baghlan Province. The offensive lasted for about five hours, and left the Taliban in control of the military base and a nearby police checkpoint; Taliban killed nearly 50 Afghan police and soldiers and took 36 prisoners. Taliban have overrun large parts of another army base in northern Afghanistan. The insurgents had captured tanks and ammunition in Chenayeeha army base, in Ghormach district of Faryab province, in an offensive that began on August 12. “We have not been able to enter the base. Large parts of the base are still under the Taliban control,” a local spokesperson said. The Ministry of Public Health confirmed the death toll had risen to 48 in the suicide bombing in a classroom at an education academy in Dasht-e-Barchi, in Kabul. Government sources reported that over 70 security force members had been killed and dozens more wounded in battles on several fronts around the country including Baghlan, Zabul and Kandahar provinces. Afghanistan’s Independent Human Rights Commission (AIHRC) reported on August 15 that more than 64,000 Afghan civilians were either killed or wounded during the past nine years, with the Taliban causing 70 percent of the casualties. A similar UN report indicates that more than 5,100 Afghan civilians had suffered casualties in the conflict over the first six months of the ongoing year which indicated that a large number of Afghans continued to be victim of terrorism. Presumably the US led occupation forces are in the process of abdicating their responsibility in the rural Afghanistan and have decided to even handover some of the urban districts to Taliban as a part of preliminary bargain. Taliban have risen from the ashes and are now a force to reckon with. Afghan government is under tremendous pressure as Taliban threaten new districts. Hundreds of people have been killed or wounded, on several fronts, in clashes during the last two weeks. Contrast this bloodbath with what the US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said during an unannounced visit to Kabul on July 09 that there was “now hope” for peace talks between the Afghan government and the Taliban. “An element of the progress is the capacity that we now have to believe that there is now hope,” Pompeo told a press conference. “Many of the Taliban now see that they can’t win on the ground militarily. That’s very deeply connected to President Trump’s strategy”, he added. Earlier in January this year, President Ashraf Ghani had offered the Taliban peace talks without conditions. United States has dropped its previous refusal to talk to the Taliban; and both have spoken directly in Qatar, where they maintain a political office. Systematic retreat indicates that while maintaining a state of denial, Americans may have actually covered a substantial space for reaching a political deal with Taliban. Now America is contemplating addition of Zalmay Khalilzad, as Presidential Special Envoy on Afghanistan. Zalmay, a former US ambassador to Afghanistan, is known for his anti-Pakistan and anti-Taliban leanings. His appointment is meant to impress upon Taliban and Pakistan that the US is serious about talks to end its longest war. The US military commanders now openly acknowledge a stalemate in the fighting. Afghan peace continues to be as elusive as it had ever been.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *