A pragmatic approach

Through a letter to Prime Minister Gilani, the Nato chief, Fogh Anders Rasmussen, has regretted the "unintended" killing of over two dozen Pakistani soldiers and offered condolences to the bereaved families. So has the American political and military leadership. They all have also promised thorough investigation into the incident, obviously keeping alive the notion that the deadly helicopter raid could well be part of a running battle across the border, as against the Pakistani claim that the attack was absolutely unprovoked and uncalled for as there was no militant activity whatsoever in that area. Already media reports, as usual drawing sustenance from Afghan and coalition sources, are suggesting that the Nato raid was in retaliation for fire from the ground, disregarding the fact that both the posts that were attacked were clearly identifiable. Not only the Nato authorities were in full knowledge of the attack, they were receiving real-time appraisal from the Pakistan military, but, according to the ISPR, 'the Nato officials did not take any action to stop such provocative strikes'. So much for the need to hold inquiry into the incident which Rasmussen says would help him 'draw the right lessons'. For the Pakistani leadership there's no need to get into yet another inquiry about such friendly and not-so-friendly strikes. We have had the Raymond Davis saga, then the get-Osama CIA operation, and now a killer raid - in addition to an almost daily dose of drone attacks. In our long and largely unreciprocated co-operative partnership with the West we seem to have hit the fork in the road, and our partners want us to get lost. Pakistan needs to revisit its engagement with the US-led coalition and decide its future course of action in its best national interest. Rightly then a dispassionate examination of the factors that caused the rift with the West and charting the future course to determine where we go from here is required. Our stance should not only be realistic but sophistically calibrated based on assessment of our options and promptly made known to the international community, ideally before the Bonn conference being held in the first week of next month. In fact, our national stakes in the situation as it tends to evolve are so critical that the recent DCC decisions, though quite tough as they appear to be, are essentially symbolic in nature and may not seriously impact the emerging Afghanistan endgame scenario. According to reports, Nato has adequate stocks and stoppage of their supply through Pakistan is of no serious concern to the coalition forces in the immediate future. Ambassador Cameron Munter was summoned to the Foreign Office and Foreign Minister Khar had a blunt conversation with her American counterpart but that too is not going to restore the warmth and trust that once permeated the co-operative relationship. It should be clearly understood that if this situation presents a dilemma for Pakistan, the coalition too is beset with a set of agonising options. Of course, the Nato commanders are worried about their image as soldiers and of their organisation's viability as an international policeman. And back home their people are fed up with fighting a losing war in distant Afghanistan and their politicians are increasingly agreeing to bring home their troops, victory or no victory. But their generals, and lobbies that benefit from war collaterally, want to keep fighting - in league with the native Afghan commanders. No wonder then most of the tension on the Pak-Afghan border is the making of these Afghan commanders. If the recently-held Loya Jirga voted for foreign military bases in Afghanistan, it is what the Afghan commanders wanted and the Loya Jirga readily conceded that the elected Afghan parliament won't have. An army fights a war, that's its business. But when to start the fight and when to stop it, it's for the government to decide. So what should be Pakistan's next move, the ball is in Prime Minister Gilani's court. Of course nothing should be spared, whatever it costs, to defend national sovereignty and territorial integrity. But, given the gravity of the multidimensional crisis that confront our polity today it is inconceivable that Pakistani forces are asked by the government to open a warfront with the US-led coalition. Frankly speaking, at present we don't have the national cohesion and single-mindedness to effectively pursue the war option. Then the alternative is a much more serious and significantly steeped up political-cum-diplomatic effort to apprise the international community of the reality of war in Afghanistan and who wants it to go on. In this context, therefore, the question whether Pakistan should attend the Bonn conference deserves serious examination; just to sit out in a huff may not be a realistic approach. We should appear to be part of the solution rather than the problem that the Kabul regime never stops at claiming internationally. Merely passing parliamentary resolutions and holding street demonstrations are not enough; there must be a well-conceived, concerted government plan to muster international support for Pakistan's position especially now that Kabul-New Delhi axis is working strenuously to shift the blame of coalition's impending failure to Pakistan. Copyright Business Recorder, 2011