Business Recorder Column July 30, 2019

Reset to client status?

Rashed Rahman

All the euphoria in Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaaf (PTI) circles after Imran Khan’s recent visit to the US may prove premature, misplaced over-optimism, and failure to discern the true meaning or essence of the so-called ‘reset’ in US-Pakistan ties. No one in recent years has described this relationship as anything but ‘transactional’, meaning the US has wooed and inundated Pakistan with its largesse when it needed the latter to promote or achieve its interests, but ‘dumped’ it when the immediate need was over.

Actually, this mutual lack of understanding stems from the divergent goals each country has pursued, without anyone on either side being willing to state this evident truth clearly and without ambivalence. When Pakistan joined SEATO and CENTO in 1954, it became part of the US-led international anti-communist coalition. But that was, as later events proved, only half of Pakistan’s expectations from choosing the west in the Cold War era. Soon after independence, Pakistan was embroiled in a short, sharp war with India over Kashmir. The mindset that emerged after this 1947-8 episode of hostilities was that India was not reconciled to the concept of Pakistan as an independent state and would therefore spare no effort to destroy it. The western anti-communist alliance ensured military and financial aid to Pakistan, which the latter considered critical to its defence buildup and security. However, there was a gap between Pakistan’s understanding (or hope) from the western alliance and what the US expected from Pakistan.

Between 1954 and 1965, Pakistan and India fitfully held talks on the Kashmir issue, but nothing came of these rounds. In 1965, military dictator Ayub Khan decided to try and upset the regional apple cart by infiltrating fighters into Indian Held Kashmir (IHK) with the expectation that the Kashmiri people, seething under New Delhi’s jackboot, would spontaneously welcome and join the insurgents in a fight for freedom. Unfortunately, those hopes turned out to be a complete misreading of the mood of the Kashmiri masses at that point. When the expected uprising did not occur, both militaries were inexorably sucked into an all-out war.

That is when Pakistan was confronted with the real worth (or lack of it) of the western alliance. Sticking to the letter of the alliance agreement, the US imposed an arms embargo on both countries, although it was obvious this would only affect Pakistan since India then was aligned with the Soviet Union. This perceived ‘betrayal’ accelerated Pakistan’s desire to explore alternatives to its close embrace of the west, including closer ties with China, which had not only fallen out with its communist compatriot the Soviet Union, but fought a border war with India over disputed territory in 1962 in which India was humiliated. Arguably, the inconclusive 1965 war hastened the Ayub regime’s departure from power by 1968-69 under the impact of a seven-month long countrywide agitation against his dictatorial rule.

During the East Pakistan crisis in 1971, the US paid lip service to helping Pakistan, but hardly lifted a finger to help Islamabad prevent the fall of Dhaka. When India exploded a nuclear device in 1974, Pakistan under Bhutto embarked on a necessarily secret programme to develop a nuclear deterrent. Bhutto suffered a horrible fate at the hands of the hangman’s noose, amongst other reasons for defying the US on Pakistan’s development of a nuclear deterrent.

The biggest irony is that after Pakistan had critically assisted the west in defeating the Soviets in Afghanistan in the 1980s, once the Soviets departed in 1989, Pakistan was sanctioned for its clandestine nuclear weapons programme. This too felt like ‘betrayal’. Given this barely-below-the-surface feeling in Pakistan that the US had time and again used Pakistan for its own ends when it suited it, and thrown it away like a used tissue when the goal had been met, it should not surprise us that when the US-led west turned away from Afghanistan in 1989 to focus on its Cold War victory over the Soviet Union-led socialist bloc in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union itself, leaving Pakistan to deal with the continuing fallout of the Afghan war, the rulers of the time thought they had found a solution in their own interests to the unending civil war between the triumphant Mujahideen groups after the fall of the Najib communist regime. The Taliban were launched to overcome the fractious, interminable and intractable intra-Mujahideen civil war. The rest, as they say, is history.

The US consistently saw the Pakistani military as the largest, most efficient Muslim army in the region and beyond. Over the years, relations between the Pentagon and GHQ were maintained even through the worst crises in relations between Washington and Islamabad. That ‘parallel’ track was still in existence and evident by the makeup and meetings of our top brass with their counterparts in Washington when accompanying Imran Khan on his Washington yatra. But this military-to-military conduit could not change the fundamental divergence in understanding and goals of the two sides in the last 65 years. The US saw Pakistan, particularly its military (which it helped build up), as a more than useful ally in the regional and global struggle against communism and the threat of anti-imperialist revolution. Pakistan on the other hand hoped this western help would extend to its conflict with India. That is where the divergence was inherently located. The years that followed have been a see-saw of burgeoning and waning relations.

As to the current conjuncture, the cooings in the White House aside, how the US behaves in future will crucially depend on whether Pakistan, as it is promising, succeeds in helping pull the US’s chestnuts out of the Afghan fire. That outcome will ultimately determine whether the present (restored) bonhomie will continue and grow into US largesse once again flowing into Pakistani coffers or once again regress into alienation and friction, with their concomitant fallout. Since the Afghan settlement process is complicated, lengthy and uncertain in terms of eventual results, don’t hold your breath.

rashed.rahman1@gmail.com

rashed-rahman.blogspot.com

Business Recorder Editorial July 30, 2019

Pak-US ties reset?

After Prime Minister Imran Khan’s return from his US visit, both sides have expressed their desire to reset mutual relations that have been dogged by friction for years, which was exacerbated by US President Donald Trump’s statements and actions to punish Pakistan for alleged double-dealing vis-à-vis Afghanistan. The US State Department’s spokesperson Morgan Ortgus said the two countries seek to advance their shared priorities. The priority for Washington, it is obvious, is extrication from the long running Afghan war. The future relationship between Pakistan and the US depends critically on the outcome of that effort, for which Imran Khan has stated he would be meeting the Afghan Taliban to persuade them to do whatever is necessary to find a political solution to the war and restore peace, including talking to the Afghan government, something the Taliban have been resisting so far on the grounds that Afghan President Ashraf Ghani’s government is a puppet. The Taliban have expressed their readiness to meet Imran Khan when invited for talks. The prime minister has also hinted that two western hostages (one American) long held by the Taliban are likely to be released soon. In turn, the US has restored technical support for Pakistan’s F-16 fleet. The Pakistani Foreign Office’s spokesman Dr Mohammad Faisal has emphasised the ties reset and the desire of both countries to move forward on the basis of mutual respect. He noted that the ‘do more’ mantra was now history, and a mechanism would be set up to follow up on the understanding reached in Washington. Comprehensive talks would be held, focused on building a broad-based and enduring partnership. Dr Faisal welcomed Trump’s mediation offer on Kashmir while expressing surprise at India’s fierce reaction. China and Turkey have welcomed the development and the former has reiterated its hope that Pakistan and India can settle their mutual problems through dialogue.

There is no denying the fact that Prime Minister Imran Khan and President Donald Trump struck a good rapport but it remains to be seen if that is sufficient to restore a rocky relationship that has seen more than its fair share of ups and downs. The description usually used to describe Washington’s approach to relations with Pakistan is ‘transactional’, which means the US has wooed Pakistan when its interests so dictated and ‘dumped’ it when the immediate objective has been achieved. The question now is, has that changed? Or is it the case that Washington needs Islamabad to help pull its chestnuts out of the Afghan fire, and once that is accomplished (with as much face saving for the US as possible), will the relationship once more revert to its historical pattern? One should not lose sight of the fact that the US is the pre-eminent global power whose interests straddle the world. That diversity of interests (with the US’s hegemony centre-stage) means the interests of the US and Pakistan can only flourish when the two countries’ policies are aligned and converging. Starting from our becoming part of the US alliance against communism in the shape of SEATO and CENTO in the 1950s to the twists and turns in the alliance during the Afghan wars, the divergences between the two sides have been just as evident as the convergences. Islamabad claims the right of a relationship based on mutual respect, but the ground reality is that a relationship between a superpower and a third world country inherently implies elements of a clientist outcome. Whatever softening up and actual or declared easing of restrictions and help for Pakistan is being mooted by Washington presently will only be really tested when the Afghan imbroglio (hopefully) is out of the way. It is only then that the soft cooings on either side will be truly tested, verified, or negated.

Business Recorder Editorial July 28, 2019

Opportunity missed

Prime Minister (PM) Imran Khan’s speech at a rally of Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaaf (PTI) supporters in Washington DC has set off another round of controversy, recriminations, accusations and counter-accusations between the government and the opposition. Addressing a large crowd at Washington’s Capital One Arena on July 21, 2019, Imran Khan followed his by now familiar script of castigating the opposition leaders as corrupt, offered a ‘plea bargain’ to them whereby they could walk free if they return the alleged looted money, and threatened to take away facilities such as air conditioning, home cooked food and TV from them in jail until and unless they returned the loot. Predictably, the speech evoked criticism from some at the venue and a fierce response from the opposition at home. The dissident voices at the venue said that the PM should have focused on his economic agenda and international issues and not on domestic politics. Although Imran Khan promised his government’s policies would lead to good days returning to Pakistan, there are many at home and abroad who treat such promises as ‘pie in the sky’, given the precarious state of the economy since the PTI assumed office. The opposition on the other hand called the PM’s speech ‘anarchic, provocative, and full of venom’. They castigated Imran Khan’s latest diatribe against their leaders on foreign soil as an act likely to bring disrepute to the country. Imran Khan in his speech had dilated on how, when opposition leaders were asked for answers, they said political revenge was being exacted. The PM repeated his leit motif charge of the opposition leaders seeking a deal to let them off the hook. Bilawal Bhutto Zardari, Chairman Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) said it was a pity that even when representing the country abroad, it seemed the PM had not yet come down off his container, and that Imran Khan had become a ruler, not a leader. What Pakistan needs, he went on, is a leader who speaks not only for himself but for all Pakistanis. If the government is bent upon doing opposition and the opposition too does opposition, who is left to run the country, the PPP Chairman asked rhetorically. Other comments by opposition leaders such as the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz’s (PML-N’s) Maryam Nawaz reiterated their stance that Imran Khan and his government were a ‘selected’ lot. Media censorship and non-tolerance of peaceful protest were also charges the opposition flung at the PTI government.

Some of the things Imran Khan said in his speech rang true. For example, when he argued that merit and merit alone could impel Pakistan forward. But such wisdom can only resonate when it is delivered in a context of statesmanship, particularly when representing the country abroad. Dragging domestic divisive politics into the fray depreciates and distracts even from well meaning and well intentioned ideas. One would have thought Imran Khan would have realized that he has ample opportunity (every day) to make this kind of ‘container’ speech at home. What he needed to understand was that he was addressing not just a PTI rally in Washington but in fact speaking to the world. But going by his track record, Imran Khan is simply repeating what he has been doing on earlier visits abroad, whether to China or Malaysia. By painting Pakistan as a corruption-ridden country, to which he and his party ascribe all the accumulated problems of Pakistan (almost to the exclusion of anything else), Imran Khan is not doing any favour to the image or interests of the country. The Washington rally was a golden opportunity to convey to the world at large the vision of Imran Khan’s much touted ‘Naya’ (New) Pakistan that could inspire confidence at home and abroad. Instead, the tired diatribe at the opposition can only be seen as an opportunity missed.

Business Recorder Editorial July 26, 2019

Many a slip…

US President Donald Trump’s remarks about a possible mediation role in the Kashmir dispute between Pakistan and India have caused a furore in India and expressions of ‘triumphalism’ in Pakistan. Trump said during the meeting with Prime Minister Imran Khan in the White House that he would be willing to play a mediatory role in the dispute if both sides asked him to. Further, he made the startling revelation that Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi had in fact asked him to play such a role in their interaction during a G 20 summit. Predictably, given India’s long standing position that based on the Simla Accord of 1972 and the Lahore Declaration of 1999, the Kashmir issue could only be discussed bilaterally, with no room for third party mediation, the development caused a political storm in India. The clarification by India’s External Affairs Ministry denying Trump’s claim in both houses of the Indian parliament failed, however, to satisfy the raging opposition, who insisted Mr Modi himself must clarify the matter before parliament. In Pakistan meanwhile, the media and commentators hyped up the development as a major diplomatic victory for Pakistan. Perhaps a more sober reflection on the issue would remind us of a few undeniable ground realities. India insisted in the Simla Accord in 1972 that the Kashmir issue would henceforth only be discussed bilaterally, based on its international embarrassment over many years after then Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru took the dispute to the UN Security Council after the 1947-8 Kashmir war soon after Independence. The move came to haunt India in international forums since then. Pakistan’s defeat at India’s hands in 1971 over the Bangladesh conflict left little room for manoeuvre. Then President and civilian Chief Martial Law Administrator Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, who came to power after the debacle, conceded the demand in the light of the fact that 90,000 Pakistani prisoners of war and slivers of territory along the Kashmir Line of Control were in Indian hands. Since then, and even more so after the Lahore Declaration signed by then visiting Indian Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee and Nawaz Sharif in 1999, India has invoked the bilateral basis for any talks about Kashmir to spare itself past blushes in the international arena. However, the stalled bilateral dialogue has found shipwreck on New Delhi’s insistence that alleged ‘terrorism’ in Kashmir emanating from Pakistani soil be stopped before the dialogue can be resumed. That is where matters stand for the moment.

Pakistani media and commentators are cock-a-hoop over the fact that a sitting US president has seen fit to even talk about Kashmir, let alone offering his good offices for mediation. The general run of such coverage and comments dwells on the superpower status of the US and how it could therefore help leverage India off its intransigent perch. But on cooler reflection, Trump’s off-the-cuff remarks should not have more ascribed to them than they deserve. Mr Trump is by now well known for his unpredictability and gaffes. By claiming Modi asked him for mediation over Kashmir, Trump has not only breached diplomatic protocol, he has embarrassed India and Modi to the point of the Indian opposition being up in arms at the perceived ‘shift’ in India’s approach to the issue. A simpler and perhaps truer interpretation of this Trump-style revelation is that the US president was merely saying what Imran Khan and Pakistan wanted to hear. Since Washington is currently hoping for and wooing Islamabad to help extricate it from the unwinnable Afghan war, it may simply be a no-cost lubrication of the US’s desire for Pakistani cooperation in this matter. Interpretations that tend towards seeing Trump’s remarks as a ‘quid pro quo’ for Pakistan’s help in the Afghan conflict may be stretching it too far. Let us not forget that in the global and regional context, it is India the US sees as a strategic partner against the rise of China and in the US’s own interests. Given India’s official reiteration of its bilateral approach to Kashmir, perhaps we should not hold our breath in anticipation of Trump’s mediation becoming a reality any time soon.

Business Recorder Editorial July 24, 2019

Nemo judex in causa sua

The Judge Arshad Malik affair not only refuses to die down or go away, it has taken on new twists and turns with each passing day. Take for example the claimed (by Maryam Nawaz and PML-N leaders) ‘forensic audit’ by the Punjab Forensic Laboratory of the leaked video of the judge confessing that he had been pressurised to convict Nawaz Sharif although there was no evidence against him. The PML-N leaders claimed the audit had confirmed the veracity of the video, which should in the interests of justice lead to the release of incarcerated Nawaz Sharif. Special Assistant to the Prime Minister on Information and Broadcasting Firdous Ashiq Awan, in her by now trademark style, could not of course let that pass. She denied any forensic audit had been carried out, called all those (including sections of the media) claiming this “habitual liars” and revealed that the FIA Cyber Crime Wing would carry out a forensic audit and submit its report to the Supreme Court. Meanwhile the author of the video, Tariq Mahmood, was presented before Civil Judge Shaista Kundi and complained of being severely tortured by the FIA. Perhaps as a result of these tender FIA ministrations and whatever may have been gleaned thereby, Tariq Mahmood’s brother’s house was raided and two ‘important’ documents were claimed to have been seized. While the Supreme Court continued hearing of petitions on the matter yesterday, it has been reported that contrary to the Islamabad High Court’s directive, Judge Arshad Malik has not so far been repatriated to his parent Lahore High Court but made an OSD. The controversial judge has also filed an FIR against those who secretly filmed him and those who released it. The FIA says more arrests may be in the offing as it mines the record recovered from Tariq Mahmood, his brother and Nasir Butt (whose home has also been raided and some record seized.

Awkward as the whole affair is proving for the judiciary, the revelations courtesy the leaked video (and some other videos circulating on social media) cannot simply be swept under the carpet without serious damage to the credibility of the judiciary. As it is that credibility, and the respect and dignity that flow from it, have been severely shaken. Judge Arshad Malik climbed the tiers of the judiciary smoothly it seems, including a stint as a sessions judge, an appointment that gave him power of life and death through his verdicts. The question arises whether those appointing/elevating him had no idea of the sleazy aspects of his character that have now come to the surface (and may increasingly be revealed)? If so, it throws a negative light on the procedure/s for judges’ appointment. Should those responsible for Judge Arshad Malik’s appointment and elevation not be held responsible for their failure to acquaint themselves with the character of the man? It may be recalled that when parliament wished to have its say in the appointments of judges of the superior judiciary, the apex court resisted. Some critics of our judicial system have long held that the ‘old boys’ network that operates around judges’ appointments may be at fault in the Arshad Malik affair too. That is why perhaps it is time to return to the natural principle of justice that ‘no one should be a judge in his own case (Nemo judex in causa sua)’, especially where appointment of judges is concerned. And it goes without saying that only by cutting through the confusion created by the war of words between the government and the PML-N on the issue and letting the truth be told can the judiciary expect to emerge from this scandal with its credibility, grace, dignity and respect intact.