Defining Pak-US re-engagement
Courtesy:- Saman Zulfqar
Parliamentary Committee on National Security has finally presented its report in the joint session of Parliament on March 20, 2012. The committee was given the task to revisit “terms of engagement” with the United States in the aftermath of Nato Attack on Salala Checkpost in November last year. The Committee’s recommendations include: to seek unconditional apology from United States over Salala attack; taxing the Nato supplies transiting through Pakistan; no verbal agreement with any foreign government regarding national security; no use of Pakistani bases and airspace by foreign forces without parliamentary approval; no hot pursuit or boots on ground; no covert operations on Pakistan’s soil; activities of foreign private security contractors should be subjected to Pakistani law; cessation of drone attacks; to seek civilian nuclear agreement with United States and not to succumb to US pressure but keep on pursuing gas pipeline project with Iran.
The report has taken into account not just the national interest of Pakistan but the aspiration of people of Pakistan to formulate an independent foreign policy. Although it is a right step at right direction that Parliament has been assigned the job that was earlier a domain of civil-military bureaucracy, yet it is to seen how far these recommendations will be formulated in actual policy. Political parties have to pass a unanimous vote to send a clear message to the United States to treat Pakistan with mutual respect and equality. PML (N) has shown serious reservations on the reportparticularly on the clause related to giving official permission to the presence of foreign spy agencies. The party has made it clear that presence of foreign spy agencies and private contractors will be unacceptable at any cost because it compromises national sovereignty. The party will deliberate upon these issues and then will show its response.
The debate on the report has been postponed till the next session that will be convened on March 26. If these recommendations were adopted by unanimous voting from the parliament then what would be the outcome of that report? How relationship will be reordered given the conflicting interests of Pakistan and US? Some of these recommendations are not new as these have been reiterated time and again. The issue of drone strikes, US apology on Salala attack, civilian nuclear agreement with Pakistan and Pakistan-Iran gas pipeline project are likely to become contentious subjects in future negotiations with the United States.
Although United States has avoided commenting on the recommendations put forward by Parliamentary Committee yet Secretary Clinton identified counter-terrorism cooperation as the mutual interest of Pakistan and United States. Like the State Department, White House also avoided to formally comment rather it will wait for the outcome of the parliamentary debate. White House Press Secretary Jay Carney told the press that US value its relationship with Pakistan because Pakistan’s role is important to achieve US objectives in Afghanistan.
Washington is following its own policies to achieve its interests without considering Pakistan’s limitations or its interests. This is where we see divergence of interests. Drone attacks are counterproductive, these are resulting in civilian casualties, fueling anti-American sentiments and intensifying the growing militancy in the region. To continue drone attacks is in American interest and to halt them is in Pakistan’s interest. Similarly US apology on Salala attack does not seem likely. Americans have not accepted it as intentional and deliberate attack but Ambassador Munter on the same day when report was presented in the parliament reiterated his earlier statement that Salala attack was carried out mistakenly.
Given the American media’s propaganda against Pakistan’s nuclear program and their exaggerated concerns about safety and security of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons anticipate no possibility of concluding Pakistan-US Civilian Nuclear Agreement. United States considers Iran-Pakistan gas pipeline project detrimental to its own interests and might try to force Pakistan to abandon the project and seek alternative sources to overcome its energy problems.
US-Pakistan relations have seen many ups and downs, it is ironical to note that relationship has been warm when US national security interests were safeguarded by Pakistan (when their interests converged and this is the basic logic that governs international relations). Pakistan and US have never developed a lasting and durable partnership. Their relationship has based on short-term goals and objectives and when these objectives are met Pakistan becomes meaningless for the US decision makers. The difficult task before us is to see how to evolve this tactical partnership into strategic partnership and whether Pakistan will be able to successfully negotiate new terms of engagement.
Parliamentary Committee on National Security has finally presented its report in the joint session of Parliament on March 20, 2012. The committee was given the task to revisit “terms of engagement” with the United States in the aftermath of Nato Attack on Salala Checkpost in November last year. The Committee’s recommendations include: to seek unconditional apology from United States over Salala attack; taxing the Nato supplies transiting through Pakistan; no verbal agreement with any foreign government regarding national security; no use of Pakistani bases and airspace by foreign forces without parliamentary approval; no hot pursuit or boots on ground; no covert operations on Pakistan’s soil; activities of foreign private security contractors should be subjected to Pakistani law; cessation of drone attacks; to seek civilian nuclear agreement with United States and not to succumb to US pressure but keep on pursuing gas pipeline project with Iran.
The report has taken into account not just the national interest of Pakistan but the aspiration of people of Pakistan to formulate an independent foreign policy. Although it is a right step at right direction that Parliament has been assigned the job that was earlier a domain of civil-military bureaucracy, yet it is to seen how far these recommendations will be formulated in actual policy. Political parties have to pass a unanimous vote to send a clear message to the United States to treat Pakistan with mutual respect and equality. PML (N) has shown serious reservations on the reportparticularly on the clause related to giving official permission to the presence of foreign spy agencies. The party has made it clear that presence of foreign spy agencies and private contractors will be unacceptable at any cost because it compromises national sovereignty. The party will deliberate upon these issues and then will show its response.
The debate on the report has been postponed till the next session that will be convened on March 26. If these recommendations were adopted by unanimous voting from the parliament then what would be the outcome of that report? How relationship will be reordered given the conflicting interests of Pakistan and US? Some of these recommendations are not new as these have been reiterated time and again. The issue of drone strikes, US apology on Salala attack, civilian nuclear agreement with Pakistan and Pakistan-Iran gas pipeline project are likely to become contentious subjects in future negotiations with the United States.
Although United States has avoided commenting on the recommendations put forward by Parliamentary Committee yet Secretary Clinton identified counter-terrorism cooperation as the mutual interest of Pakistan and United States. Like the State Department, White House also avoided to formally comment rather it will wait for the outcome of the parliamentary debate. White House Press Secretary Jay Carney told the press that US value its relationship with Pakistan because Pakistan’s role is important to achieve US objectives in Afghanistan.
Washington is following its own policies to achieve its interests without considering Pakistan’s limitations or its interests. This is where we see divergence of interests. Drone attacks are counterproductive, these are resulting in civilian casualties, fueling anti-American sentiments and intensifying the growing militancy in the region. To continue drone attacks is in American interest and to halt them is in Pakistan’s interest. Similarly US apology on Salala attack does not seem likely. Americans have not accepted it as intentional and deliberate attack but Ambassador Munter on the same day when report was presented in the parliament reiterated his earlier statement that Salala attack was carried out mistakenly.
Given the American media’s propaganda against Pakistan’s nuclear program and their exaggerated concerns about safety and security of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons anticipate no possibility of concluding Pakistan-US Civilian Nuclear Agreement. United States considers Iran-Pakistan gas pipeline project detrimental to its own interests and might try to force Pakistan to abandon the project and seek alternative sources to overcome its energy problems.
US-Pakistan relations have seen many ups and downs, it is ironical to note that relationship has been warm when US national security interests were safeguarded by Pakistan (when their interests converged and this is the basic logic that governs international relations). Pakistan and US have never developed a lasting and durable partnership. Their relationship has based on short-term goals and objectives and when these objectives are met Pakistan becomes meaningless for the US decision makers. The difficult task before us is to see how to evolve this tactical partnership into strategic partnership and whether Pakistan will be able to successfully negotiate new terms of engagement.
Comments
Post a Comment