The meeting between Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani and US President George Bush on the sidelines of the World Economic Forum on the Middle East being held in Egypt led to a reaffirmation of the current US Administration's stance on a number of issues that have been prominent in the relations between the two countries post 9/11.
First and foremost remains the commitment of the two countries to the US-led war on terror. Prime Minister Gilani assured the US President that Pakistan would continue to cooperate with the international community in the war on terror. However, the emerging differences of opinion between the two countries on the modalities of carrying on the war have sharpened with the advent of the new government in Islamabad.
These difference range from the decision of the PPP government to hold parleys with the militants, and where possible, to seek rapprochement instead of conflict while condemning the alleged US drone attack in Damadola in Bajaur Agency that left 10 people dead.
With a marked decline in the number of suicide attacks within Pakistan, the Government is viewing its policy of supporting parleys in preference to military engagement as successful. Unfortunately, insurgent attacks in Afghanistan have escalated, which is attributed by the international force to the success of the parleys in providing safe havens for the Taliban in Pakistan.
At present both sides are treading carefully, and while the US President chose not to comment on the US drone attack in Damadola, Prime Minister Gilani admitted that he had raised the subject with President Bush and also insisted that Pakistan's commitment to fighting terrorism and extremism had not waned with a change in government.
Thus some cracks do seem to be appearing in the relationship but one would have naturally expected some change as a military dictatorship was transformed into a democratic dispensation in Pakistan. The US would do well to support the endeavours of the democratically elected government of Prime Minister Gilani because in strengthening his hand alone would the US be able to convince the Pakistani people that its interests are synonymous with those of our country.
Second, the two leaders discussed an economic package, generally regarded as an effective policy to undermine the ability of the fundamentalists to attract new recruits. Development and, consequently, wealth generation, it is argued, is, of course, the fodder that would lead to any meaningful decline in local support for the extremists and fundamentalists.
However, development activity cannot be carried out when there is an ongoing military operation and the US must understand that peace is a prerequisite for the launch of development schemes. The two leaders talked of more targeted US assistance to social sectors particularly health, education and women's development - sectors whose development would no doubt further erode the ability of the extremists to convince the people that their cause is just.
President Bush also expressed concern over rising food prices in Pakistan. However no mention was made of the role the US has inadvertently played in this. Through supporting bio-fuels the US government has diverted grain to bio-fuel production thereby compromising the world's grain supply.
Third the issue of the Iran-Pakistan-India (IPI) gas pipeline was discussed and the US opposition to it was reiterated. From Pakistan's perspective there is little doubt that given the scale and extent of the ongoing energy crisis the IPI is the only alternative that is doable at this stage.
The alternate energy supply from Central Asia to Pakistan, supported by the US, is now facing two major challenges that seem insurmountable at this point in spite of the backing of the world's sole superpower: (i) Gazprom of Russia made a deal late last year with all the energy surplus Central Asian Republics, including Turkmenistan, to purchase their entire surplus energy, and (ii) failure of the US-led forces in Afghanistan to bring a semblance of normality in that hapless country other than that in Kabul and its environs.
Thus the interests of the two countries seem to be divergent on this crucial issue and it is unlikely that an elected Pakistani government will be able to withstand public pressure to approve the IPI and not to wait for a deal that appears almost impossible at this time.
Fourth, the US President noted that the Kashmir issue was 'ripe for a solution'. This statement does not promise mediation or any involvement of the US in furthering the resolution of the Kashmir issue and, as per US foreign policy, leaves the onus on the governments of Pakistan and India. The US clearly sees no role for itself in resolving this issue that has marred India-Pakistan relations since independence.
There is little doubt that in spite of the differences between Washington and Islamabad as a result of the policies of the PPP-led government there are a lot of common areas of interest that need to be explored. However, reminding President Bush that true friends must agree to disagree on some issues is hardly going to prove successful.
The current US administration has a poor track record of accepting disagreements with its policy, as is reflected in the souring of the US relations with France and Germany when those two countries opposed the invasion of Iraq. However with the imminent end of the Bush administration things are changing. In this scenario it is preferable for the Government to keep the US engaged in dialogue and hope that a more balanced and mature approach may be forthcoming.
Comments
Comments are closed.