Can't We Be a Bit More Mature in our Foreign Policy Discussions?

Our TV channels have exhibited immature exuberance in projecting an adverse American certificate on Pakistan while citing the latest Pentagon report which mentions that Pakistan is using militant groups as proxies to counter the “superior Indian Army”. In particular they quote the report mentioning that the attack on our Herat consulate was by Pakistan based Lashkar –e-Taiba “done just ahead of the swearing-in ceremony of Narendra Modi as the Prime Minister of India”. The attempt perhaps is to cite this as a result of better lobbying with the United States by the new government.

A careful reading of the full text of the report would however indicate that the US Defense Department is only trying to give factual position to their Congress on the ground situation in Afghanistan. Under Public Law 110-181, 112-81 and 112- 239 the Pentagon has to submit situation reports every 180 days. The current report for October 2014 is 114 pages. The earlier reports were also very long. All these reports explain the difficulties of doing business with Pakistan over the issue of stabilizing Afghanistan, its inner turmoil, interplay of militants in the day to day affairs of Pakistan and its effect on the long term future of Afghanistan. Contrary to the impression that is sought to be projected by our TV channels, it is neither a value judgment on Pakistan vis-à-vis India nor an assessment as to which country is closer to USA. On the contrary every report underlines Pakistan’s importance in the overall US strategy in South Asia and in Afghanistan.

For example the earlier reports also criticized Pakistan for allowing insurgency safe havens operating from their country, for extending critical support, training, infrastructure, operational and financial help. Yet every report underlined the need to maintain cordial relations with Pakistan. The 2012 report said: “Although strained, U.S. relations with Pakistan are beginning to improve…. Pakistan’s centrality to US interests is evidenced by its status as a nuclear power, its shared border with Afghanistan and India, its integral role in the fight against al Qaeda, and its potential role in promoting stability in Afghanistan. The United States continues to seek a relationship with Pakistan that is constructive and, that advances both U.S. and Pakistani interest”. The 2013 report also echoes the same assessment and compliments Pakistan in taking significant steps to “to develop the legal, regulatory, and law enforcement framework necessary to stem the illicit flow of precursors and IED's into Afghanistan….Pakistan remains the single largest trading partner and most convenient source of goods and transit routes to markets for Afghanistan”. It also said that Pakistan has demonstrated a willingness to cooperate on some key U.S. goals, “although challenges remain”.

Our TV journalists have only cherry picked what is sensational for them and not read the whole report. The relevant portions from Section 5(Regional Engagement) reads: “Pakistan and the United States cooperate on areas of mutual interests, including providing essential support to U.S. retrograde operations from Afghanistan. In addition, Pakistan continues to cooperate with the United States on some CT activities. … Afghan- and Indian-focused militants continue to operate from Pakistan territory to the detriment of Afghan and regional stability. Pakistan uses these proxy forces to hedge against the loss of influence in Afghanistan and to counter India’s superior military. These relationships run counter to Pakistan’s public commitment to support Afghan-led reconciliation. Such groups continue to act as the primary irritant in Afghan- Pakistan bilateral relations”.

After all these years, do we still need periodical statements from other powers on Pakistan’s slide into a terrorist supporting State? Reporting such developments in our media is understandable. But do we have to spend the whole evenings on TV debates over such issues? Don’t we have enough evidence already? Kanak Mani Dixit, one of the best South Asian analysts had recently said about our TV channels: “Egged on by the anchors, the appalling bombast of the participants reaches peak decibel when the talk turns to the South Asian neighbours, Pakistan in particular”.

In 2007 I had listed in one of my columns Benazir Bhuttos’s four public apologies for her foreign policy mistakes. She used to indulge in such public apologies to impress the Western audience when there were indications of her returning to power. In May 1999 while addressing the Woodrow Wilson International Centre she expressed regrets over her hawkish Kashmir policy in the presence of senior US Congress leader Lee Hamilton. The second occasion was during a December 2003 newspaper seminar in Delhi when she regretted backing a low intensity conflict in Kashmir. But she added that that it was a joint civilian-Army decision. The third was her interview with Pakistani paper “Dawn” in April 2007 admitting her mistake in encouraging and promoting the Taliban as an alternative to the warring Mujahideen. The fourth occasion of contrition was when she added a new chapter in the April 2007 edition of her 1989 book “Daughter of the East” blaming General Mirza Aslam Beg for the suggestion to capture Srinagar during the Zarb-e-Momin exercises. This was flatly denied by Gen.Mirza later who alleged that it was she who had asked him: “Can you capture Srinagar?”

We have to remember that the basic US policy towards our sub continent still remains as articulated in 2003 by Richard Hass, then State Department’s Director of Policy Planning Staff. The occasion was almost immediately after our similar exuberance during the then PM’s visit to Washington DC in 2002 when it was claimed that President Bush had given a “hard message” to President Musharraf for interfering in Kashmir. Hass had said: “America –as much as India –is eager to see a thriving, peaceful and democratic India take its place in the world. But it is simply a fact of life that India will not realize its immense potential on the global stage unless its relationship with Pakistan is normalized”. And Pakistan says that relations cannot be normal unless Kashmir issue is settled. So what is the point in earning brownie points here and there from such US reports?