08
January

The Perils of Coercion

Written By: Amir Zia


Out of this much touted figure of USD 33 billion, which Mr. Trump claims that the U.S. gave to Pakistan, USD 14.6 billion were on account of the Coalition Support Fund (CSF). The fact is that Pakistan spends more under this head than what it receives from Washington. The remaining USD18.8 billion comprised around USD 8.0 billion in security and military assistance, while the remaining USD 10 billion plus amount falls under the category of economic assistance disbursed through the USAID. Even out of this USAID amount, three-fourth goes back to the United States as consultancy and advisory fee. According to economic experts, the average annual U.S. assistance Pakistan received over the last 15 years is not more than USD 650 million an year, which remains less than one percent of the country’s budget.

U.S. President Donald Trump’s unapologetically brash, reckless and undiplomatic tweets are sending “virtual” tremors across the globe, or at least a part of it. In just the first three days of 2018, Mr. Trump used his private Twitter account to call Pakistan – once seen as the key U.S. ally in the war against terrorism – “a liar and a cheat,” threaten North Korea that he has “a much bigger” nuclear button and to take his animosity towards the American press to a new level by announcing “the most dishonest and corrupt media awards of the year.”


As a business tycoon and television personality, Mr. Trump could certainly afford to thrive on controversies. He could bulldoze rivals in political, business, media and social circles, using and abusing the social media without the worry of any wider consequences. But exercising similar tactics as president of the world’s most powerful nation is tantamount to upsetting the applecart and introducing an element of dangerous unpredictability and uncertainty in the international politics.


Yes, before Mr. Trump, it was unimaginable that a U.S. president would be taking to Twitter in a rash and impulsive manner to insult, abuse and threaten other states instead of opting for considered, careful, calculated and responsible diplomacy. Not anymore. And ironically, his blunt, unconventional and confrontationist style is defining and leading the U.S. foreign policy now.


Twitter Tirade
Mr. Trump’s New Year’s Twitter tirade against Pakistan, in which he accused Islamabad of playing a double game with Washington, remains unwarranted, thoughtless and damaging in the overall fight against extremism and terrorism. It marks a new low in the often rocky relationship of these two uneasy allies who have a history of working closely together as well as witnessing prolonged periods of estrangement.

Pakistan is the world’s only country that defeated terrorists without any foreign assistance, establishing the state writ even in those remote parts of the country where it never existed before. Pakistan Armed Forces successfully cleared terrorist safe havens including from North Waziristan in successive operations at huge sacrifices.

Yet, at least on part of Pakistan, both its civil and military leaders have been consistent in efforts to maintain friendly ties with Washington. To date, this desire of working with the United States has not changed.

Yet, at least on part of Pakistan, both its civil and military leaders have been consistent in efforts to maintain friendly ties with Washington. To date, this desire of working with the United States has not changed.


Director General Inter Services Public Relations Maj General Asif Ghafoor asserted in his various media interactions that Pakistan considers the United States as a friend and an ally and wants it to succeed in Afghanistan. But “a third force” has been trying to create misunderstanding between the two countries, he said referring towards the negative role played by the hostile neighbor i.e. India. The military spokesman, however, said that in case of any U.S. action against Pakistan, the armed forces would respond according to the aspirations of the people. This position underlines the fact that Pakistan’s desire of peace and friendly relation should not be taken as its weakness or lack of will to protect its national interests.

 

theperilsof.jpgPakistan’s civil and military leaders have reacted in a measured and mature manner to the recent provocation by Mr. Trump and other top U.S. officials in recent weeks and months.


The flawed and inconsistent U.S. approach in its dealings with Pakistan was highlighted by former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton way back in April 2009 in these words; “(we) have a history of kind of moving in and out of Pakistan.”


Clinton explained how the militancy in Pakistan was linked to the U.S.-backed proxy war against the Soviets in Afghanistan. “… we then left Pakistan [after the collapse of Soviet Union]... We said okay fine you deal with the Stingers that we left all over your country... you deal with the mines that are along the border and... by the way we don't want to have anything to do with you... in fact we're sanctioning you... So we stopped dealing with the Pakistani military and with ISI and we now are making up for a lot of lost time,” she told a subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee, while discussing the Obama administration’s foreign policy at that time.


Stating the Obvious
Mr. Trump’s administration is committing the same mistake of blaming, abandoning and victimizing Pakistan as pointed out by Hillary Clinton in 2009. This has been the continual flaw of U.S. policymakers, who time and again ditched their time-tested and dependable ally, creating more problems than solutions.


However, even before the Trump juggernaut came into motion, at various levels a sustained propaganda campaign had already been launched against Pakistan in Washington and other Western capitals, which accused Islamabad of not doing enough to help the U.S.-led NATO forces achieve victory in the war-ravaged Afghanistan.


These allegations mainly stem from the fact that despite spending trillions of dollars in its longest ever war, the United States and its allies failed to achieve their goals in the land-locked Central Asian state. Pakistan was made a scapegoat to divert attention from the policy and military failures of the U.S.-led NATO forces.


Washington’s growing strategic relations with India that included the controversial nuclear cooperation treaty of 2008 – which fundamentally reversed more than 50 years of U.S. non-proliferation efforts – also played a role in the gradual widening of trust deficit between Pakistan and the United States. The preferential treatment given to India by the United States, which also gave New Delhi a freehand in Afghanistan allowing it to use the Afghan soil to fan terrorism in Pakistan, also became one of the main bones of contention.


Changing U.S. Priorities
However, while blaming Pakistan for the Afghan mess, the U.S. decision-makers seem to deliberately overlook the way their successive governments kept changing goalposts in Afghanistan.


President George W. Bush vowed in 2002 to make Afghanistan a modern democratic state – invoking the memories of Marshall Plan – but then going full steam into Iraq, neglecting the Afghan mission. President Barrack Obama in 2009 promised to focus on narrower goals that included defeating Al-Qaeda and the Taliban by a military surge and then pull out and leave “a good enough” Afghanistan. The cornerstone of Mr. Obama’s strategy was to work with Pakistan and it’s military to defeat the Al-Qaeda and its likes. But when Mr. Trump announced his Afghan policy on August 21, 2017, he ruled out pulling troops out of Afghanistan, announcing more boots on the ground and insisting that Pakistan must “do more” or face possible sanctions. Mr. Trump’s decision to stay and “fight to win” is another major policy shift in which the U.S. administration has decided to use coercive approach against Pakistan not just to put the blame of its failure on Islamabad but to directly suck it in the Afghan conflict – which successive Pakistani leaders have successfully been resisting so far.


Myth of $33 Billion
The U.S. administration, however, is building pressure on Pakistan to do its bidding, underlining its rash approach and failure to understand – by design or default – the complexities of Afghanistan.


Mr. Trump in his provocative New Year’s Tweet claimed that the United States “foolishly” gave “Pakistan more than 33 billion dollars in aid over the last 15 years and they have given us nothing but lies & deceit, thinking of our leaders as fools.” This statement itself exposes either the deliberate twisting of facts by the U.S. president or his lack of understanding.


Out of this much touted figure of USD 33 billion, which Mr. Trump claims that the U.S. gave to Pakistan, USD 14.6 billion were on account of the Coalition Support Fund (CSF). The fact is that Pakistan spends more under this head than what it receives from Washington. The remaining USD18.8 billion comprised around USD 8.0 billion in security and military assistance, while the remaining USD 10 billion plus amount falls under the category of economic assistance disbursed through the USAID. Even out of this USAID amount, three-fourth goes back to the United States as consultancy and advisory fee. According to economic experts, the average annual U.S. assistance Pakistan received over the last 15 years is not more than USD 650 million an year, which remains less than one percent of the country’s budget.


Ignoring Facts
While unreasonably blaming Pakistan for its Afghan woes, the U.S. leadership completely ignores the fact that no other country assisted the United States the way Pakistan did in the war against terrorism.
Pakistan is the world’s only country that defeated terrorists without any foreign assistance, establishing the state writ even in those remote parts of the country where it never existed before. Pakistan Armed Forces successfully cleared terrorist safe havens including from North Waziristan in successive operations at huge sacrifices.


In order to address the concerns of Kabul and U.S.-led NATO forces regarding the alleged cross-border infiltration, Pakistan has started fencing its more than 2,600-kilometer long frontiers with Afghanistan, establishing new posts and introducing the border management system. But these measures are not being matched by Afghanistan, which in a bizarre manner, is opposing the fencing and the border management system. The Afghans and the U.S.-led forces also are doing little to monitor or man the international border to check the flow of terrorists from Afghanistan into Pakistan.


The Afghan Taliban have managed to gain ground in many parts of Afghanistan because the U.S. led forces failed to put boots on the ground, while the Afghan Army lacks the capacity and ability to stand on its own against this indigenous resistance movement.


Pakistan also has been urging Kabul for the repatriation of millions of Afghan refugees, which will help in curbing the narcotics trade as well as fighting terrorism. Pakistan has also offered for intelligence sharing time and again for prompt action against terrorists.

 

These allegations mainly stem from the fact that despite spending trillions of dollars in its longest ever war, the United States and its allies failed to achieve their goals in the land-locked Central Asian state. Pakistan was made a scapegoat to divert attention from the policy and military failures of the U.S.-led NATO forces.

In a nutshell, the blame game will lead Pakistan and the United States nowhere in the fight against terrorism. By targeting and victimizing Pakistan only the narrative of terrorists and extremists is being strengthened which remains a bad omen in this war. The U.S. belligerence will also strengthen those political and religious forces in Pakistan which firmly stand opposed to any cooperation with the United States in the war against terrorism.


Main Bulwark
Pakistan Armed Forces and state institutions serve as the main bulwark against terrorism and extremism in the region. They are not just holding together this nation of more than 200 million people but also stopping the tide of extremism from spreading across South and Central Asia.


Any attempts to weaken or damage these institutions would not just throw Pakistan into an unprecedented turmoil and aggravate an already dangerous situation in Afghanistan, but plunge the entire South Asia including India into a chaos, where religious, sectarian and ethnic fault-lines run deep and wide.


The United States’ myopic policies of blaming Pakistan, which has rendered huge sacrifices in the war against terrorism, will lead the two countries nowhere. The solution lies in cooperation, building trust, addressing Pakistan’s concerns regarding Afghanistan and helping resolve its unresolved issues, including the protracted Kashmir dispute with India.


On many fronts Pakistani and U.S. interests converge. There are more reasons to cooperate in the fight against extremism and terrorism than to confront. But it should remain clear that while Pakistan and its people desire close and friendly relations with the United States and all neighbours, it will stand up for its core national interests come what may.

 

The writer is an eminent journalist who regularly contributes for print and electronic media.

E-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Twitter: @AmirZia1

 
09
January

امریکی پالیسی کے بدلتے رویے

تحریر: جاوید حفیظ


ایک نقطہ نظر یہ بھی ہے کہ افغانستان میں مکمل امن سے وہاں سپر پاور کے عسکری وجود کا جواز ختم ہو جائے گالہٰذا اصل ہدف یہ بھی ہو سکتا ہے کہ تھوڑی بہت بدامنی بھی چلتی رہے مگر غیرملکی افواج کا جانی نقصان نہ ہو۔ بظاہر یہ دونوں متضاد ہدف لگتے ہیں تو پھر افغانستان میں سپر پاور لمبے عرصے تک کیوں رہنا چاہتی ہے۔ بظاہر جو اب یہ ہے کہ افغانستان سے غیرملکی افواج کا یکدم انخلاء وہاں طاقت کی رسہ کشی اور سول وار کو جنم دے سکتا ہے۔ مگر اصل ہدف سی پیک کے ساتھ ساتھ پاکستان اور ایران کے ایٹمی پروگرام اور اثاثوں پر کڑی نظر بھی ہو سکتا ہے۔

امریکی وزیردفاع جیمز میٹس نے دسمبر کے آغاز میں پاکستان کا دورہ کیا اور اہم شخصیات سے ملے۔ اس اہم دورے پر تبصرہ کرنے سے پہلے یہ ضروری ہے کہ سیاق و سباق کو سمجھا جائے۔ قارئین کو صدر ڈونلڈ ٹرمپ کی اگست 2017کی تقریر یقینا یاد ہو گی جس میں من جملہ دیگر امور کے اصل تخاطب پاکستان سے تھا اور صریحاً ہم پر الزام تھا کہ اربوں ڈالرز وصول کرنے کے باوجود ہم مغربی سرحد کے آس پاس ایسے نان سٹیٹ ایکٹرز کو پناہ گاہیں مہیا کرتے ہیں جو افغانستان جا کر امریکی فوجیوں کو قتل کرتے ہیں۔ اس تقریر میں امریکی صدر نے پاکستان کو وارننگ بھی دی تھی کہ اپنی پالیسی درست کرے ورنہ امریکہ اپنی پالیسی بدلنے میں حق بجانب ہو گا۔

amrikipolicy.jpg
آپ کو یاد ہو گا کہ اپنی انتخابی مہم کے دوران صدر ٹرمپ نے افغانستان سے امریکی فوجیں نکالنے کے عزم کا برملا اظہار کیا تھا۔ اب سوال یہ پیدا ہوتا ہے کہ وائٹ ہائوس میں آنے کے بعد انہیں یوٹرن کیوں لینا پڑا اس کی بڑی وجہ یہ تھی کہ افغانستان کے حالات میں مزید بگاڑ آ رہا تھا۔ ملک کا تقریباً نصف حصہ طالبان کے زیراثر آ چکا تھا۔ افغان نیشنل آرمی اور دیگر سکیورٹی فورسز کے خلاف حملے بڑھ رہے تھے۔ امریکن ملٹری کے انخلاء کے بعد عین ممکن تھا کہ اشرف غنی حکومت دھڑام سے گر جاتی اور ویسے بھی ایک سپر پاور کے لئے کوئی بھی قابل ذکر ہدف حاصل کئے بغیر اس طویل ترین جنگ سے پسپائی بڑی ندامت والی بات ہوتی لہٰذا فیصلہ کیا گیا کہ افغانستان میں امریکن فوج کی تعداد قدرے بڑھا دی جائے اور دوست ممالک سے بھی فوجی بھیجنے کی اپیل کی جائے۔ تقریر کا ایک نقطہ یہ بھی تھا کہ اب فوجی انخلاء کے لئے کسی ٹائم لائن کا اعلان نہیں ہو گا اور فیلڈ کمانڈرز کو بروقت اور فوری فیصلہ کرنے اور ایکشن لینے کا اختیار دیا جائے گا۔ صدر ٹرمپ کی اس اہم تقریر کے بعد پاکستان پر دبائو بڑھنا قدرتی امر تھا۔


گزشتہ دو تین ماہ میں امریکہ کی جانب سے کئی اہم شخصیات نے پاکستان کے دورے کئے ہیں۔ ان کے خیال میں افغانستان میں امریکہ کے اہداف حاصل نہ کر سکنے کی بڑی وجہ پاکستان کی نیم دلانہ مدد ہے مگر امریکی لیڈر شپ کا یہ تجزیہ حقائق کے برعکس ہے۔ پاکستان نے دہشت گردی کے خلاف جنگ میں سب سے زیادہ قربانیاں دی ہیں۔ ضرب عضب کی کامیابی کے بعد مغربی سرحد کے قریب نان سٹیٹ ایکٹرز کا وجود تقریباً ختم ہو چکا ہے۔ اب پاکستان سے ڈومور کا مطالبہ مناسب نہیں لگتا۔


صدر ٹرمپ کی تقریر پر پاکستانی لیڈر شپ کا ری ایکشن ظاہر ہے ناراضگی والا تھا۔ امریکی وزارت خارجہ نے اپنا مؤقف سمجھانے کے لئے سفارت کار بھیجنے کا عندیہ دیا تو پاکستان نے انہیں مشورہ دیا کہ وہ فی الحال آنے کی زحمت نہ کریں۔ آرمی چیف کا کہنا تھا کہ ہمیں آپ کے اعتماد کی ضرورت ہے مالی امداد کی نہیں۔


امریکی صدر ڈونلڈٹرمپ اپنی سیمابی شخصیت کے لئے مشہور ہیں۔ کبھی بھی یقین سے ان کے اگلے قدم کا اندازہ لگانا مشکل ہوتا ہے۔ اسی طرح سے جنرل جیمز میٹس اپنی سخت گیری کی وجہ سے مشہور ہیں۔ صدر ٹرمپ نے جب انہیں وزیردفاع لگایا تو بہت سے لوگوں نے اس بارے میں اپنے تحفظات کا اظہار کیا تھا۔ امریکہ میں انہیں کئی عجیب قسم کے القاب دیئے گئے ہیں جو انٹرنیٹ پر دیکھے جا سکتے ہیں۔ 2003میں عراق پر حملے کے وقت جنرل میٹس نے امریکی فوجیوں کو حکم دیا تھا کہ بظاہر نرم خوئی کا مظاہرہ کریں۔ پروفیشنل سولجر کی طرح کام کریں اور جو بھی عراقی ملے اسے مار دیں۔ یہ ایک غیرمعمولی اور عجیب قسم کی کمانڈ تھی۔
اب سوال یہ ہے کہ محفوظ پناہ گاہ کی تعریف کیا ہے۔ پاکستان میں اب بھی دوملین کے قریب افغان مہاجرین ہیں، کیا ان کے گھر یا کیمپ محفوظ پناہ گاہیں ہیں۔ اگر فرض کریں ایسا ہے تو پاکستان تو کئی سالوں سے مہاجرین کی باعزت واپسی کے لئے کوشاں ہے لیکن افغانستان میں بدامنی یا انٹرنیشنل کمیونٹی کی عدم دلچسپی آڑے آتی رہی ہیں۔ یہ عمل کئی مرتبہ شروع ہوا ہے مگر پھر رک جاتا ہے، یا سست روی کا شکار ہو جاتا ہے۔
اسی طرح سے بارڈر کنٹرول کا مسئلہ ہے۔ پاکستان عرصے سے کوشاں ہے کہ بارڈرز پر خاردار تاریں لگا کر آنے جانے کے راستوں کو محدود کر دیا جائے۔ روزانہ ہزاروں لوگ اس بارڈر کو کراس کرتے ہیں۔ اگر سب کے ڈاکومنٹ چیک کئے جائیں اور آنے جانے کے لئے ویزہ لازمی ہو تو دہشت گرد آسانی سے بارڈر کراس نہیں کر سکیں گے۔ پاکستان کی اس بارڈر فینسنگ کی تجویز پر مزاحمت ہمیشہ کابل کی طرف سے آئی۔ امریکہ اور نیٹو ممالک نے بھی اس تجویز میں زیادہ دلچسپی نہیں دکھائی۔ بارڈر کنٹرول کے بغیر دونوں جانب سکیورٹی خدشات رہیں گے۔ پاکستان نے اب یہ کام خود شروع کر دیا ہے۔ مگر ڈھائی ہزار کلومیٹر پر دھاتی باڑ لگانا یا خندقیں بنانا ایک طویل کام ہے۔
اِس حقیقت سے کون صرفِ نظر کر سکتا ہے کہ جب افغانستان کا نصف حصہ طالبان کے زیراثر ہے تو انہیں پاکستان میں پناہ گاہوں کی کیا ضرورت ہے۔ حقانی نیٹ ورک کی عددی قوت دو تین ہزار سے زائد نہیں۔ وہ لوگ اب پاکستان میں نہیں ہیں تو ساڑھے تین لاکھ افراد پر مشتمل افغان آرمی اور دس ہزار غیرملکی افواج اُن پر غلبہ کیوں نہیں پا سکتے۔

amrikipolicy1.jpg
ایک نقطہ نظر یہ بھی ہے کہ افغانستان میں مکمل امن سے وہاں سپر پاور کے عسکری وجود کا جواز ختم ہو جائے گالہٰذا اصل ہدف یہ بھی ہو سکتا ہے کہ تھوڑی بہت بدامنی بھی چلتی رہے مگر غیرملکی افواج کا جانی نقصان نہ ہو۔ بظاہر یہ دونوں متضاد ہدف لگتے ہیں تو پھر افغانستان میں سپر پاور لمبے عرصے تک کیوں رہنا چاہتی ہے۔ بظاہر جو اب یہ ہے کہ افغانستان سے غیرملکی افواج کا یکدم انخلاء وہاں طاقت کی رسہ کشی اور سول وار کو جنم دے سکتا ہے۔ مگر اصل ہدف

CPEC

کے ساتھ ساتھ پاکستان اور ایران کے ایٹمی پروگرام اور اثاثوں پر کڑی نظر بھی ہو سکتا ہے۔ سی پیک پر امریکہ اور انڈیا دونوں کے تحفظات ہیں۔ ان کے نزدیک یہ اقتصادی سے زیادہ سکیورٹی منصوبہ ہے۔ انڈیا نے کہہ دیا ہے کہ وہ افغانستان میں فوج نہیں بھیجے گا۔ انڈیا بخوبی واقف ہے کہ کوئی بھی غیرملکی فوج کبھی بھی افغانستان کو لمبے عرصے کے لئے کنٹرول نہیں کر سکی لہٰذا انڈیا کا رول اقتصادی ترقی کے منصوبوں کے ذریعے خیرسگالی پیدا کرنا اور پھر اس افغان خیرسگالی کو پاکستان کے اندر اپنے مذموم عزائم کے لئے استعمال کرتا رہے گا۔

 

امریکہ کی نئی سکیورٹی سٹریٹجی کا حال ہی میں اعلان ہوا ہے اور یہ بڑی حد تک صدر ٹرمپ کی سوچ کی عکاس ہے۔ ''امریکافرسٹ'' اس پالیسی کا موٹو ہے۔ امریکی صدر کا خیال ہے کہ قوت کے ذریعے امن قائم ہو سکتا ہے۔ اس پالیسی میں انڈیا کا رول اہم ہے۔ انڈیا کے علاوہ جاپان اور آسٹریلیا نیلے سمندروں میں امریکہ کے مرکزی حلیف ہوں گے۔ یعنی چین کے گرد گھیرا تنگ کیا جائے گا۔ اس سے سی پیک کی اہمیت مزید بڑھ جائے گی۔ اس پالیسی میں پاکستان سے ایک مرتبہ پھر مطالبہ کیا گیا ہے کہ نان سٹیٹ ایکٹرز کے خلاف کارروائی کرے۔


پاکستان 1950کی دہائی سے امریکہ کا قریبی حلیف رہا ہے۔ ہمارے ہاں یہ احساس بھی پایا جاتا ہے کہ امریکہ اپنا کام نکلوا کے نظریں پھیر لیتا ہے جیسا کہ سوویت افواج کے افغانستان سے انخلاء کے بعد ہوا۔ یہ بات درست ہے کہ پاک امریکہ تعلقات میں اتارچڑھائو آتے رہے ہیں۔ دونوں کو ایک دوسرے سے گلے شکوے رہتے ہیں لیکن دونوں ایک دوسرے کے لئے اہم ہیں۔ پاکستانی برآمدات کے لئے امریکہ سرفہرست ہے۔ آئی ایم ایف یا ورلڈ بینک سے مدد درکار ہو تو وہاں بھی امریکہ کا اثر رسوخ ہے۔ بہت بڑی پاکستانی کمیونٹی امریکہ میں رہائش پذیر ہے۔


امریکی تعلیمی ادارے اور ریسرچ اب بھی دنیا میں ٹاپ پر ہیں۔ اقوام متحدہ میں امریکہ کی نمایاں پوزیشن ہے۔ امریکہ اور یورپ کا تعاون دونوں کا قد کاٹھ بڑھاتا ہے۔ دوسری جانب افغانستان میں موجود امریکی فوجی دستوں کے لئے مختصر ترین سپلائی روٹ پاکستان ہی ہے۔ افغانستان میں امن کی تلاش میں بھی پاکستان کا رول رہے گا اور ہمیں مدد کے لئے پھر کہا جائے گا۔


پاکستان اور امریکہ کے درمیان شکوک و شبہات کی خلیج موجود ہے۔ دونوں طرف سے کوشش ہونی چاہئے کہ یہ خلیج وسیع تر نہ ہونے پائے۔ امریکہ سے پچھلے دنوں دو تین اہم بیان آئے ہیں۔ وزیرخارجہ ریکس ٹلرسن نے ایک بیان میں کہا ہے کہ پاکستان ہمارے لئے بہت اہم ہے مگر میں پاکستان کے ساتھ بات چیت انجوائے نہیں کرتا۔ ایک اور بیان میں کہا گیا ہے کہ نان سٹیٹ ایکٹرز پاکستان کے کسی قطعہ اراضی پر قبضہ بھی کر سکتے ہیں جبکہ ہمیں معلوم ہے کہ ایسا آج کے حالات میں ممکن ہی نہیں جب تک نان سٹیٹ ایکٹرز کو سپرپاور کی پوری مدد حاصل نہ ہو۔ میری نظر میں یہ بیان پاکستان کے لئے بالواسطہ وارننگ ہے اور صدرٹرمپ کی اگست والی تقریر کا تسلسل ہے۔


امریکی وزیردفاع نے پاکستان میں وزیراعظم شاہدخاقان عباسی، آرمی چیف اور ڈی جی آئی ایس آئی سے ملاقاتیں کیں اور ان ملاقاتوں میں ''ڈومور'' کا مطالبہ ضرور ہوا ہو گا۔ یہ قطعاً ضروری نہیں کہ پاکستان امریکہ کے الزامات سر جھکا کر تسلیم کر لے۔ ہمیں اپنے خدشات انڈیا کے رول کے حوالے سے بیان کرنا چاہئیں اور اس وزٹ میں ایسا ضرور ہوا ہو گا۔ اگر انڈین انٹیلی جنس کا تخریبی رول پاکستان میں افغانستان کے راستے جاری رہتا ہے تو سی پیک سکیورٹی پراجیکٹ بن سکتا ہے۔ دونوں ممالک کو کھل کر بات کرنا ہو گی دوطرفہ تعلقات میں بہتری دونوں کے مشترکہ مفاد میں ہے۔

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
 
04
April

Afghan Peace Process: New Developments

Published in Hilal English

Written By: Hasan Khan


At Kabul Process II on February 28, President Dr. Ashraf Ghani unveiled an unprecedented ‘peace plan’ inviting Taliban to direct peace talks with Kabul government to draw a comprehensive peace strategy and end one of theworld’s most ‘intractable’ wars.


“We are making this offer without preconditions in order to lead to a peace agreement,” the President told international participants of KP-II.

 

afghanpeaceprocess.jpg“Taliban are expected to give input to the peace-making process, the goal of which is to draw the Taliban as an organization to peace talks.”


President Ghani’s peace initiative is dubbed by many as a ‘bold initiative.’ For the first time Kabul administration accepted Taliban militia–hitherto labelled as ‘foreign sponsored terrorists’–as a political force (inviting them) to open political offices anywhere in Afghanistan including Kabul.


The new peace initiative also attracted admiration and support from regional and international stakeholders of the conflict. Even cynics started believing President Ghani’s unconditional offer for peace talks coupled with delisting names of certain militia leaders from UN terror-watch lists, releasing of prisoners, offering passport, travel and offices facilities would render the insurgents change their hard position on negotiating peace directly with Afghan government.


It will be too cynical to appear disappointed at this stage. However, it seemed evident that Taliban leadership is deliberately downplaying the President’s talk offer by not responding to the same even after passage of weeks.


Taliban have so far avoided responding directly to Dr. Ghani’s peace plan, however, their lack of interest in talking to Kabul is obvious from the militia’s spokesman response as a reply to an ‘open letter’ published in New Yorker magazine written by Barnett Rubin–a leading expert on Afghanistan and South Asia–who urged Taliban to accept talks with Kabul government.


“Our country has been occupied, which has led to an American-style supposed Afghan government being imposed upon us… And your view that we talk to them and accept their legitimacy is the same formula adopted by America to win the war,” Taliban response said, adding the Kabul Process was simply aimed at seeking the “surrender” of Taliban militia.


The militia leadership still believe Americans have occupied Afghanistan and the Kabul government is a puppet government imposed over the Afghans. Instead of talking to what they believed is ‘the puppet Kabul regime,’ they wanted to talk directly with the U.S.


In a statement issued days after unveiling Ghani’s peace proposal, Taliban had asked the U.S. to talk directly to the militia’s political office in Qatar, and not negotiate through the Afghan government.


“You [U.S. administration] know how to reach us through our office in Doha,” a Taliban media operator in a tweet message told the U.S. administration and added, “Let us [Taliban] know when you’re ready to talk to discuss your exit… Soon is better before it becomes very ugly for you in Afghanistan.”


They also wrote an ‘open letter’ to American people, urging them to put pressure on President Trump and U.S. military to stop war in Afghanistan and start negotiations.


For Taliban trusting the Afghan government leadership is also a major issue. They knew the Kabul regime is not independent in taking decisions vis- à-vis peace.


In the last week of January–by which President Ghani would have finalized this ‘new peace initiative to be unveiled at KP-II’ after consultations with Afghans–a statement from the President office ruled out any sitting for peace talks with Taliban. This statement was a follow up of U.S. President Donald Trump’s announcement of ‘no talks for peace with Afghan Taliban for the time being’ following deadly terror attacks in January in Kabul.


“[The] Taliban have crossed a red line and lost the chance for peace… we have to look for peace on the battlefield. They have to be marginalized,” Afghan President Ghani’s office issued this statement. Before this statement of the U.S. President on January 29 said, “I don’t think we’re prepared to talk right now… They’re killing people left and right. Innocent people are being killed left and right.”
On the other hand the growing impression in Kabul is that by announcing the new peace initiative Dr. Ghani seemed to be in full command of the situation and is re-enacting the successful model of Hezb-e-Islami Gulbuddin Hekmatyar episode with Taliban.


The new initiative–which many believed is a comprehensive one–has also dispelled the impression that [though] Afghan government leaders are lacking a workable peace strategy. According to political commentators Dr. Ghani has thrown the ball in the Taliban’s court and the insurgents must respond positively. Pressure might be increased on Taliban leadership as the new peace initiative has overwhelming support of Afghans from across the ethnic and political divides.


The reason for widespread support and acceptance lies in the action prior to formulating the comprehensive package by President Ghani and his government’s chief executive Dr. Abdullah as they had long deliberated and held consultations with political leaders, members of civil society, religious figures, women and youth leaders from across the country.


But, is there any attraction for the insurgents to jump the bandwagon of Dr. Ghani and, that too, at a time when Ghani’s regime is fast losing control over more and more territories and shrinking to major population centers only? Kabul government is practically dysfunctional with its authority eroded by the increasing ethnic tensions, resurgent warlords and endemic corruption.


This situation is further worsened by the phenomenal increase in the civilians’ casualties both in the rising Taliban attacks in urban localities and U.S. airstrikes in rural areas.


The prevailing perception is that the government made the unconditional offer of peace negotiations to the Taliban under duress. And it’s highly unlikely that Taliban leadership will accept the peace offer in a situation when the militia is gaining more and more strength and influence.


Going by the surveys of western sources including SIGAR (Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction) and BBC the militia has phenomenally increased territories under sway to over 50%.
BBC study shows Taliban are in full control of 14 districts and have an active and open physical presence in a further 263, significantly higher than previous estimates of Taliban strength. The Afghan government has full control over merely 30% of country and about 15 million people–half of Afghanistan’s population–are living in areas that are either controlled by Taliban or where the militia is openly present and regularly mounts attacks, as per the report.


SIGAR–U.S.’ main watchdog in Afghanistan–in its report submitted to Congress in February, claimed Afghan government has control over only 57% of its territory leaving 43% to Taliban insurgents. A year earlier government was in full control of 72 percent of the country.


This is coupled with another very important development. Historically, Taliban used to increase territorial influence in summer. But shrunk back to mountains and rural areas in severe cold winter losing control over territories, particularly in the northern regions. This winter the Taliban not only continued holding more and more areas in the north, center and west of Afghanistan but also continued hitting the country with widespread deadly attacks.


Holding more territories throughout the year means Taliban have the luxury of now recruiting more fighters and extending their fights to areas which are under government control and thus can further dent Kabul regime in the eyes of Afghans.


A senior Pakistani military leader recently shared that under emerging possibilities of peace, Pakistan is using its maximum leverage on Afghan Taliban to negotiate with Kabul. Pakistan through border control mechanism and strict watch over Afghan refugee camps has been able to curb the cross-border movement as well as use of other facilities like medical etc. in Pakistan. In this backdrop, recent peace signals by Taliban should be tseen in this context. However, Pakistani military leader has also maintained that Pakistan does not have much leverage and Afghans fighting on their soil are an independent entity. It is time for others to understand Pakistan’s limitations and view us pragmatically. It is encouraging that like Pakistan, other important regional countries Iran, China and Russia are also encouraging the militia leadership to resolve the conflict through table talks.


In their open letter to American people, Taliban said that their preference is to solve the Afghan issue through peaceful dialogues. In Herat when work on Afghan section of a $10 billion gas pipeline linking Turkmenistan, Pakistan and India started, Taliban declared support for the pipeline and other infrastructure projects that could benefit Afghans.

 

The writer is a senior journalist, analyst and anchorperson at a private TV channel.

E-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

 
04
April

Pakistan-India-U.S.: The Troubled Triangle

Published in Hilal English

Written By: Dr. Huma Baqai


Pakistan has supported U.S. for seven decades, the relationship has swung between being the most sanctioned ally to a non-NATO ally. Post 9/11, Pakistan helped U.S. more than any of its NATO allies. The reward unfortunately is public humiliation now and then. President Trump’s tweet was the proverbial straw that broke the camel’s back. The shifting thought in Pakistan is that it’s time to change the equation. The message from Pakistan is loud and clear. The Armed Forces of Pakistan have restored country’s stability while the stability in Afghanistan is the responsibility of the Afghan government and U.S. forces.

Pakistan-U.S. relations are witnessing an unprecedented realignment. Washington has taken an exceptionally tough stance on Pakistan with the U.S. President accusing it of lies and deceit. Pakistan and U.S. relations are a textbook case of political realism. Since 1947, the construct of convergence between the two states is ambiguous. The engagement is compulsion driven. On more than one occasion, both the states have pursued divergent interest trajectories sabotaging each other’s interests at regional and international levels. Uneasy marriage to odd couple of modern international relations is how the relationship is referred to. This roller coaster alliance is the direct outcome of the lack of a shared threat perception. Pakistan at best is, and was, a utility partner.


The relationship has experienced a more obvious downward slide since President Bush’s second term, where an attempt was made to de-hyphenate India and Pakistan. In 2008, under Obama, America launched the AfPak policy, a term popularized by Richard Holbrooke, who later became the first U.S. special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan. Pakistan both resisted and resented this grouping.
Another major irritant was the use of unmanned aerial vehicles by the allied forces stationed in Afghanistan against targets in Pakistan. U.S. was seen as a state violating Pakistan’s territorial sovereignty and killing innocent people. This led to the dwindling of public support for General Musharraf’s pro-U.S. policy, which was low to begin with. Other factors included the increased levels of militancy and terrorism in Pakistan, U.S. treatment of captives at Guantanamo Bay detention facilities, and handing over of the alleged terror suspects to the U.S. The rising levels of insecurity also impacted the economy adversely. In 2012, three-in-four Pakistanis (74%) considered the U.S. an enemy, up from 69% in 2011 and 64% in 2009. President Obama was held in exceedingly low regard. Pakistan because of its pro-U.S. policies, became a country that was internally divided and doubted abroad.

 

pakindiausthe.jpgPresident Obama, known by many as a pacifist and the recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize within the first nine months into his presidency as well as for his notable speech “A New Beginning” in Cairo, six years into his time in the office had approved military operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen, Libya and Syria.


The Bureau of Investigative Journalism estimates that the Obama administration launched more than 390 drone strikes in five years across Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia, eight times as many approved during the entire Bush presidency. 330 of the 390 drone strikes were carried out in Pakistan.


The China Factor
Since then, the relationship has only deteriorated and the trust deficit between the two countries has increased. U.S. desire to replace Pakistan by New Delhi to achieve its larger objectives of curtailing China’s rise and maintaining its influence in the region has only worsened the situation. Admiral Harry Harris, the head of U.S. Pacific Command, called China a disruptive power in the Indo-Pacific region, while speaking alongside Indian and Japanese counterpart at the annual Raisina Dialogue in New Delhi in January 2018. Earlier in 2011, Hillary Clinton wrote an article titled “America’s Pacific Century,” where she says, “the future of politics will be decided in Asia, not in Afghanistan or Iraq, and the United States will be right at the center of the action.” 2013 onwards, senior U.S. officials like Joe Biden, John Kerry and former commander of U.S. Pacific Command Samuel Locklear III began to use terms like Indo-Asia Pacific or Indo-Pacific. The outcome of this is the very active engagement between U.S. and India in the Asia-Pacific. The Indian Ocean has become the new field for the rebalance. U.S. also sees a strategic convergence with India’s “Act East Policy.” India is now the lynchpin of U.S. Asia-Pacific Rebalance Strategy.


“India is in” and “Pakistan is out,” is the crux of President Trump’s South Asia Policy. This turnaround is embedded in the shift in Washington’s focus from being Asia-specific to Indo-specific to counter the new power dynamics of South Asia, where U.S. now views China as more than just a latent adversary. China’s rise has changed the regional balance, making it imperative for U.S. to sustain its supremacy by aligning more proactively with India.


Damage Control
The first visit of a senior American official since President Trump’s new year tweet, in which Pakistan was accused of lies and deceit, happened in mid-January 2018. The U.S. Department of State’s Bureau of South and Central Asian Affairs Principle Deputy Assistant and Acting Assistant Secretary of State, Ambassador Alice Wells met Pakistani officials and gave the first so-called policy statement on Pakistan-U.S. relations. She said all the right things and more of the same just a bit more nicely, trying to soften the blow. The crux of which is that U.S. is not desirous of giving Pakistan a key ally status anymore, nor wants to sever its ties and perhaps there are consequences for non-compliance and some acknowledgement of Pakistan’s contribution ending on the usual ‘more has to be done’.


This is perhaps the problem. James Carafano, a senior defence analyst with the Heritage Foundation, way back in 2015, said, “Washington has failed in the efforts with Pakistan and it is stuck playing tit-for-tat with Islamabad, that’s fine for kids’ game, but it is disaster when it comes to playing politics in what might be the most dangerous part of the world.” He also said, “sadly, the White House doesn’t have any other game plan. The back and forth with Pakistan is not only unproductive, it just keeps adding space for Al-Qaeda, the Haqqani Network, and others to grow making the world less safe for Washington and Islamabad.”


In an attempt at damage control from Pakistan’s side, Foreign Secretary of Pakistan, Ms. Tehmina Janjua, made a quiet visit to Washington in March 2018, where she held two high-level meetings at the White House and the State Department. Apparently, the visit resulted in Washington responding to Pakistan's longstanding demand to take action against TTP terrorists using Afghan soil to launch cross-border attacks.


The U.S. Department of Justice announced a hefty reward for information on three TTP leaders: $5 million reward for information on TTP chief Mullah Fazlullah and $3 million each for the leaders–Mangal Bagh and Abdul Wali Khan–of its two affiliated groups. Earlier in March 2018, 21 TTP terrorists, including Fazlullah's son, were killed in drone strikes inside Afghanistan. It is also believed that Qari Yasin, a notorious trainer of suicide bombers, and Maulvi Gul Muhammad, the group’s head from Bajaur Agency, were also killed in the strike.


Fazlullah, Wali and Bagh are among the most-wanted men for Pakistan, which had already announced reward money for their capture and outlawed their groups. Their organizations had claimed responsibility for some of the most horrendous terrorist attacks in Pakistan. Fazlullah’s TTP claimed the 2014 attack on an army-run school in Peshawar in which around 149 people, including 133 schoolchildren, were killed. It also claimed responsibility for the beheading of seven Pakistani soldiers in June 2012, shooting of Malala Yousafzai in October 2012, and the failed bid by Pakistani-American Faisal Shahzad to detonate an explosive device in Times Square, New York, in May 2010. Among other attacks, Wali’s JUA was accused of killing two Pakistani employees of the U.S. Consulate in Peshawar in March 2016, and Bagh’s men of attacking NATO supply convoys.


Ms. Janjua’s visit was an attempt to improve ties with the U.S. and at least have a working relationship. She said that both sides wanted positive engagement and were partners in the War against Terror. However, Commander of the U.S. Central Command, General Joseph Votel–who was present at Janjua's White House meeting–told the House Armed Services Committee "we are now beginning to see positive indicators" from Pakistan, though in terms of a strategic shift it is "not equal to actions that we would like to see them take." The divergence in the two sides' views of the situation is hardly surprising. As the Foreign Secretary explained after her discussions in Washington, there are differences on modalities. Pakistan "wants less (emphasis) on kinetics and more on reconciliation, as ultimately it's reconciliation that produces results." Ambassador Wells and Secretary Janjua’s statements are following the vicious cycle of public humiliation followed by damage control which has become a signature of Pakistan-U.S. relations. More importantly, the term “ally” was neither used by U.S. nor Pakistan.


What's New?
Pak-U.S. relations have reached a new low, and has nothing new to it. What’s new is that this time Pakistan has chosen to respond differently to American pressure tactics. It is actively looking for alternatives and options; they are coming in plenty. China was already filling the growing void left by the U.S. while Russia is the new entrant. Russian analysts say that it is motivated by years of growing presence of Islamic State militants in neighbouring Afghanistan. Russia has warmed up to Pakistan as well as to Taliban insurgents battling the ISIS.


Daniel Markey, senior research professor in international relations at John Hopkins University, has said that Russian relations with Pakistan aim to solve two problems for Moscow. First, to blunt the threat of ISIS from Afghanistan. Second, to undermine U.S. influence; but perhaps more importantly, according to him Russia and Pakistan probably have more in common with respect to the war in Afghanistan, than the United States has with either, and this is a real turnaround from prior history. Russian Foreign Minister, Sergey Lavrov has also accused Washington of failing to go after Islamic State groups in Afghanistan.


As U.S. influence in Islamabad diminishes, Pakistan’s former adversary Russia is building up military, diplomatic and economic ties, that could replace the alliance of the past. The forthcoming energy deals and blooming of military co-operation, are very promising and may turn a new leaf in Pakistan-Russia relations, that was dead for many decades. Pakistan’s Defence Minister rightly said, “Both countries have to work through the past to open the door to the future.” Prime Minister Shahid Khaqan Abbasi was of the view that Russia and Pakistan are on common grounds on most issues at diplomatic level and that “it’s a relationship that will grow substantially in the future.”


The détente between Pakistan and Russia will not only act as a diplomatic lifeline for Pakistan in the face of its growing friction with Western powers, but will also help Pakistan in its relations with India which now leaves no stone unturned to exploit the distancing between Pakistan and the U.S. The sale of F-16 to Pakistan, absence of a favourable approach towards China-Pakistan Economic Corridor, grey-listing Pakistan by Financial Action Task Force (FATF) and criminal silence on Kashmir by the U.S. are some of the examples of how the Indian lobby has used its clout with American congressmen to sabotage Pakistan’s interests and its relations with the U.S.

 

The thrust of the doctrine is that the effort Pakistan military has put in since 2001 to counter terrorism on its soil and in the region must be both appreciated and recognized. The repute of Pakistan is not at stake anymore, it has changed for the better and Pakistan military has worked very hard and given a lot of sacrifices to make it happen. Now, in 2018, America needs Pakistan and not the other way around. The American establishment knows U.S. forces cannot survive in the landlocked Afghanistan without Pakistan’s active support. The myth of Pakistan’s diplomatic isolation is challenged with Turkish, Chinese and Japanese foreign ministers’ public support for Pakistan’s counter-terrorism efforts.

U.S. had played the role of a balancer between Pak-India relations; this role is now compromised. This compromise may have a very high cost. India is becoming more aggressive with each passing day. Since 2013 the LoC is in a state of mini war. India has been resorting to violation of ceasefire treaty signed with Pakistan in 2003. However, the escalation since 2013-14 is dangerous. Indian forces have routinely resorted to unprovoked firing at the LoC, 382 times in 2016 and as many as 1881 times in 2017. More than 300 ceasefire violations along Line of Control (LoC) have been committed by Indian Army since January 1, 2018 alone, making LoC one of the most dangerous borders in the world.


No wonder, India is skeptical of both China and Russia growing closer to Pakistan. “If the Russians start backing Pakistan in a big way at the political level, then it creates a problem for India,” said Sushant Sareen, a leading expert on India’s relations with Pakistan and Afghanistan with New Delhi based Observer Research Foundation. Moreover, the new warmth in Pak-Russian relations’ also in some ways offsets the over-dependence of Pakistan on China.


Russia and Pakistan are negotiating potential energy deals worth in excess of $10 billion, setting up of five huge power projects is in the pipeline. Russian companies are keen on building up an oil refinery and a power station in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province. Much bigger deals have their focus on gas supply and infrastructure to Pakistan (a go ahead has been given to a 1,100 km gas pipeline from Lahore to Karachi). The takeover of the dysfunctional Soviet built Steel Mill by a Russian company is also on the cards.


The relationship may be in its infancy, but the potential is immense. Moreover, the convergence is now being built on commonality of interests, which includes peace in Afghanistan, countering the threat of ISIS in the region and defying U.S. arrogance.


The other major change in Pakistan-U.S. relations is how Pakistan is resisting American pressure tactics with the new-found confidence it has gained after successfully winning the War on Terror on its land and its new-found friends.


In the face of constant public humiliation dished out by the Americans, Pakistan desires to balance its sovereignty and interests against American pressures by embracing new centers of power. The other policy response is what the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI), a leading British think tank, has called the push back that Pakistan has given to the United States “The Bajwa Doctrine”. The observations made are that the doctrine is biting back hard against threats issued by the American Administration. It also says Pakistan appears far more confident than it was in the past. The doctrine categorically states that the Pakistan Army has done enough, it’s time for the world to do more.


Pakistan is also now adamant that time for American threats and directives is over. It is prepared to face cuts in the U.S. military aid and counter potential threats of cross-border incursions by American forces.


The thrust of the doctrine is that the effort Pakistan military has put in since 2001 to counter terrorism on its soil and in the region must be both appreciated and recognized. The repute of Pakistan is not at stake anymore, it has changed for the better and Pakistan military has worked very hard and given a lot of sacrifices to make it happen. Now, in 2018, America needs Pakistan and not the other way around. The American establishment knows U.S. forces cannot survive in the landlocked Afghanistan without Pakistan’s active support. The myth of Pakistan’s diplomatic isolation is challenged with Turkish, Chinese and Japanese foreign ministers’ public support for Pakistan’s counter-terrorism efforts.


Pakistan has supported U.S. for seven decades, the relationship has swung between being the most sanctioned ally to a non-NATO ally. Post 9/11, Pakistan helped U.S. more than any of its NATO allies. The reward unfortunately is public humiliation now and then. President Trump’s tweet was the proverbial straw that broke the camel’s back. The shifting thought in Pakistan is that it’s time to change the equation. The message from Pakistan is loud and clear. The Armed Forces of Pakistan have restored country’s stability while the stability in Afghanistan is the responsibility of the Afghan government and U.S. forces.


Seventeen U.S. intelligence agencies have warned the Congress that Pakistan will continue to slip out of American influence and into China’s orbit in 2019, and thereby, will become a threat to U.S. interest in the South Asian region. The review is part of an annual report that Director of U.S. National Intelligence Daniel R. Coats presented to the Senate Intelligence Committee. The agencies that jointly produced this report include Central Intelligence Agency, Defence Intelligence Agency, Federal Bureau of Investigation and National Security Agency.


The report is frozen in time, it continues to harp on the themes of nuclear weapons, ties to militants, Pakistan drawing closer to China and tensions with India compounded with Pakistan’s economic vulnerability. It seems that U.S. is incapable of digesting the change Pakistan is undergoing.


More recently, General Qamar Javed Bajwa in the Munich Security Conference held in Germany, has given a soldier’s view of what Pakistan has done, which includes Pakistan defeating Al-Qaeda, Tehreek-e-Taliban and other outlawed militant groups, and, he has also said that no organized militant camps exist on Pakistani soil today. More than 35,000 Pakistanis have lost their lives in the war against terrorism and over 48,000 are critically wounded or disabled whereas the financial cost is exceeding USD 250 billion which is shared fractionally by the global partners. Interestingly, out of the last 131 terrorist attacks in the border areas of Pakistan, in 2017, 123 were conceived, planned and executed from Afghanistan. 89 percent of Pakistanis in a recent Pew global opinion poll said that violence against civilians in the name of Islam was never justified. This is the real face of Pakistan. There are positive changes taking place in Pakistan that need to be recognized and embraced. U.S. attitude and policy towards Pakistan is not responsive to the new changes taking place on the ground which include Pakistan’s desire to be a geo-economic state.


This, in itself, is a major paradigm shift. The economic objective that Pakistan has set for itself has direct stakes for peace and stability in Pakistan and Afghanistan, improved relations with Iran and Russia, in fact even India. Pakistan is fast becoming a country investing in the politics of economy of growth, regional integration and peace. Pakistan’s energies are now geared towards neutralizing all conflicts inside its territory and improving relations with its neighbours to cultivate the atmosphere of peace. Pakistan exercises strategic restraint in its response to U.S., India and Afghanistan and the resolve to exercise this restraint is tested every day.

 

The writer regularly contributes to national electronic and print media. She is currently an Associate Professor at Department of Social Sciences and Liberal Arts at IBA, Karachi.

E-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

 

Follow Us On Twitter