5
THE joint statement of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and President Barack Obama issued last week provides a good overview of the present and future trajectory of bilateral ties between the two ‘disenchanted allies’.
It is a long statement covering a wide range of issues. There are several instances where the word ‘terror’ has been used and Afghanistan is mentioned far more than India. Like most diplomatic documents the text is tedious and lacks the hyperbole our media pundits would have preferred. Officials from both sides would have spent many hours working on every word to make it acceptable to both sides.
The statement can be divided into two. The first part deals with socio-economic issues, the second with defence and security. The first part focuses on trade, investment, education, health, environment and civil society. Issues such as defence cooperation, N-weapons and cyber security are included in the defence section and counterterrorism section. The document gives some idea about points of convergence and divergence. And, going by the draft, Pak-US relations are likely to see more cooperation and less confrontation in the near future. This is a good omen for Pakistan and the region.
Is there any big takeaway for Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif? Yes — the reaffirmation that “a mutual commitment to democracy is a key pillar of the US-Pakistan partnership”. Not that Washington decides who gets to rule in Islamabad but this puts a damper on forces that may be entertaining extra-constitutional means to boot out Sharif. And what did the US achieve from Sharif’s stay? A pledge from Pakistan that it will not allow its territory to be used against any other country and an official commitment from Islamabad to act against outfits like Laskhar-e-Taiba.
The Pak-US joint statement covers a long range of issues.
In areas of economic cooperation, environment, health, and energy, the joint statement is lean on substance. Reasserting general principles such as the need to expand trade, the officials would have had little difficulty in preparing a draft acceptable to their respective leadership.
In education, the news is more concrete. Joint funding will double for research grants in science and technology. For basic education, the US will fund initiatives to educate 200,000 girls. Much to the chagrin of Chaudhry Nisar Ali, the prime minister pledged that policies governing INGOs will be transparent, consistent and follow international norms. This will assuage some concerns of INGOs in Pakistan.
The section on counterterrorism and defence is where the points of convergence and divergence between the two countries’ perspectives become obvious. Defence cooperation has to take place in the backdrop of America’s concern with militancy and terrorism. To the dismay of Pakistan-bashers in the US, the Obama administration considers Pakistan a “partner” and recognises “the sacrifices that Pakistani civilian, military, and law enforcement have made … as they confront terrorism and militant groups”.
On Afghanistan, both countries called on the Afghan “Taliban leaders to enter into direct talks with Kabul”. While the US appreciated Islamabad’s efforts to organise the first round of talks between the Taliban and Kabul, Sharif assured Obama that “Pakistan’s territory will not be used against any other country”. This is a positive reaffirmation and every effort should be made to prevent assorted militants from using Pakistan to carry out acts of violence abroad. Such actions undermine our global credibility and bring little by way of furthering national interests.
On India, the language of the joint statement is quite instructive. The Americans have not, as many in New Delhi’s South Block would have wanted, accepted the Indian reading of affairs as the whole truth. Washington has acted in a measured way; it has stressed finding mutually agreeable solutions to outstanding issues between India and Pakistan. But the pressure is there for Pakistan to take action against LeT and its affiliates.
On nuclear matters, the statement traverses safe ground by emphasising the need for strategic stability in the region. Interestingly, the statement says the two leaders “discussed the continuing threat of nuclear terrorism”. This statement when denuded of diplomatic niceties conveys the following: Pakistan’s security establishment has been planting news of the primacy of full-spectrum deterrence over any possible compromise along the lines of the India-US civilian nuclear deal. The American side appears to have conveyed to Pakistanis that Islamabad’s track record on proliferation and possible lapses in ensuring the security of nuclear weapons is such that the main concern is to address the “threat of nuclear terrorism” and there is no nuclear deal in offing.
Overall, Nawaz Sharif can be content with the document and can safely tell his detractors that he managed to convince the US to publicly acknowledge that Pakistan was a “partner” and not an adversary.
The writer is a Canada-based academic.
Published in Dawn, October 27th, 2015
On a mobile phone? Get the Dawn Mobile App: Apple Store | Google Play
