New terms of endearment?
Relations between Pakistan and the US seem to have taken a turn for the better since the Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaaf government of Prime Minister (PM) Imran Khan came to power last year. The latest positive development in these relations is the prisoner exchange of two western hostages held by the Taliban with three of the latter’s cadres, an exchange in which Pakistan has played an important part. As a follow up of this development, PM Imran Khan and US President Donald Trump had a telephonic conversation on November 21, 2019 in which the latter thanked Pakistan for its help in getting the western hostages released. White House Deputy Press Secretary Judd Deere released a statement after the conversation between the two leaders to reveal that they reaffirmed their commitment to strengthening the US-Pakistan trade relationship, which is reportedly on track to set a new record this year, as well as US investment in Pakistan and people-to-people ties. PM Imran Khan’s visit to Washington in July 2019 lent a positive dimension to the troubled ties. During the telephonic conversation, the PM once again brought the fraught situation in Indian Held Kashmir (IHK) to President Trump’s notice and reiterated Pakistan’s desire for the US president to follow up on his mediation offer on the issue during Imran Khan's July 2019 visit. In essence, Pakistan’s efforts for peace and reconciliation in Afghanistan are expected by Islamabad to provide diplomatic leverage to persuade Washington to play a role in the easing of the ongoing lockdown in IHK. However, realism dictates that we remind ourselves of the caveat President Trump introduced after that initial mediation offer, i.e. only if both sides wished it. Since India is stubbornly against any third party mediation, this is a bird that is unlikely to take flight anytime soon. Nevertheless, PM Imran Khan’s reiteration to President Trump of Pakistan’s desire for facilitating peace and reconciliation in Afghanistan must have gone down well with the US president. This is because Trump has made no secret of his desire to withdraw from Afghanistan, but without losing face and while ensuring all the sacrifices of US lives and money in constructing and supporting the Afghan government are not undone as soon as US troops leave.
It should be recalled that when President Trump assumed office in 2016, he made no bones about his annoyance at the fact that Washington had given millions of dollars in ‘aid’ to Pakistan since the US invasion and occupation of Afghanistan in 2001 and allegedly got nothing in return except the support of Islamabad to the Taliban responsible for US military casualties and other losses. It was this irritation that led Trump to announce the freezing of all ‘aid’ to Pakistan. The ground reality however is that even if it is conceded that Pakistan fathered the Taliban in 1994 amidst the chaos and anarchy of the intra-mujahideen civil war in Afghanistan, to think that the Taliban, let alone any proxies, are merely extensions of a sponsoring state’s authorities is to underestimate the dynamic that takes over wars of this nature over time. More often than not, the ‘proxies’ acquire autonomy from the original sponsor, sometimes to the point of independence. Pakistan may still have influence and leverage over the Taliban, as the prisoner exchange mentioned above indicates, but to equate this with Islamabad’s unlimited ability to persuade or pressurise the Taliban to do its bidding would be a mistaken understanding of the real situation. If the 9/11 attacks and their aftermath are taken as an example, Pakistan was unable to persuade the Taliban government to distance itself from Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda, the perpetrators of the 9/11 atrocity. Having said that, Pakistan still can and is willing more than ever to exercise its influence with the Taliban to facilitate the peace process. But for Islamabad to pay a positive role in this regard, Washington too has to wend its way back from Trump’s declaration that the peace talks are dead to re-engaging the Taliban in talks.
No comments:
Post a Comment