The Trump Administration has formally and finally linked any progress in the bilateral relationship with Pakistan to “decisive” counter-terrorism action that helps it achieve its regional goals—dashing hopes here that Washington would rethink its policy towards its one-time ally.
The National Security Strategy announced by the Trump Administration this week, the first one under the current president, outlines the US government’s understanding of the challenges that it faces and its plans for dealing with them. To put it simply, this national security document, which technically has to be published every year but has not been brought out regularly by successive administrations, reflects the thinking in Washington.
The language about Pakistan, which was mentioned eight times in the policy document and twice in Trump’s speech on his administration strategy, was very much similar to that in the policy for South Asia and Afghanistan announced in August. One immediate inference is that the extensive engagement between the two sides after the announcement of the regional strategy, which had deeply upset Pakistan, has failed to change the way Washington looks at the country that is so crucial to its endeavours in Afghanistan.
National Security Strategy’s page number 50 is more of a charge sheet against Pakistan. Although couched in diplomatic lingo, a single reading of the document leaves no doubt that Pakistan is being accused of destabilizing behaviour, having presence of terrorists on its soil that threaten US interests, and that it has not sufficiently proven to be a responsible possessor of nuclear arsenal.
President Trump meanwhile continues to be humiliating towards Pakistan. He is not exhorting Pakistan to address his security concerns, but is instead telling Islamabad that it would have to comply because it had been paid for it. “We must see decisive action against terrorist groups operating on their territory. And we make massive payments every year to Pakistan. They have to help,” Trump said.
The phrasing is, if not more, as bad as his Fort Myers speech in which he had accused Pakistan of taking “billions and billions of dollars”, but providing sanctuaries to terrorists that the US is fighting. One cannot expect Trump to be any better, but his fixation that Pakistan is a sort of insincere gun for hire is not only unhelpful, but in fact very dangerous.
In the White House’s view, the way forward lies in Pakistan earnestly helping the US achieve its “counterterrorism goals” and it believes that “no partnership can survive a country’s support for militants and terrorists who target a partner’s own service members and officials”.
More troubling is that it’s not just Trump being tough on Pakistan. And unlike the perception some in Rawalpindi like to propagate, that generals at the Pentagon were sympathetic towards Pakistan, the thinking in the American defense establishment is no different than that on the executive side.
The latest report submitted by the Pentagon to Congress provides an insight into how the American military is thinking about this relationship. It says: “We must see fundamental changes in the way Pakistan deals with terrorist safe-havens in its territory. To induce that change, we will work across the US Government, using a range of tools to expand our cooperation with Pakistan in areas where our interests converge and to take unilateral steps in areas of divergence.”
The resort to “unilateral steps” would be something deeply worrying for Pakistani leaders. In the military sense it could be anything from drone strikes to direct action against suspected targets.
The US leadership, while analyzing the situation in this part of the world and developing its response strategies, is unfathomably missing the bigger picture. Pakistan faces a serious threat from India on the Eastern side, whereas on the Western side, India has employed proxies and is deeply involved with hostile Afghan intelligence agency NDS to destabilize it through terrorism. These are some of Pakistan’s legitimate security concerns that the US is unwilling to address. Compounding the situation, India is being bestowed the role of a regional power or a US policeman in the area that has emboldened Delhi’s hegemonic designs.
The American hardline therefore is counter-productive. Instead of bringing about a change in its behaviour, it pushes Pakistan further into the shell so it feels more insecure. Pakistan, moreover, knows the leverage it enjoys and America’s limitations. It would therefore be too simplistic to think that the US could easily browbeat Islamabad into compliance.
It is not surprising that Pakistani officials have now started responding to Trump and his administration’s rhetoric in the same language. National Security Adviser Lt Gen (retired) Nasser Khan Janjua says a two-front security threat has been created for Pakistan and the US is “exporting war and perpetual instability to South Asia.”
Those privy to the briefing Army Chief Gen Qamar Bajwa gave to the Senate Committee suggest that the prevailing mood is that of defiance to American pressure.
Foreign Office reaction to the US policy was, nevertheless, more measured as it rejected “unsubstantiated allegations”, “unfounded accusations”, trivializing of Pakistan’s sacrifices in the fight against terrorism. It also reminded the US of the terrorism sponsored by India and Afghanistan and that its designation of a country as a regional power holds no value unless that state does so through its conduct and positive contributions.
It is still not too late to make amends. The window would probably shut when the Pentagon goes ahead with the threat of unilateral action.
The writer is a freelance journalist based in Islamabad and can be reached at mamoonarubab@gmail.com and @bokhari_mr
The National Security Strategy announced by the Trump Administration this week, the first one under the current president, outlines the US government’s understanding of the challenges that it faces and its plans for dealing with them. To put it simply, this national security document, which technically has to be published every year but has not been brought out regularly by successive administrations, reflects the thinking in Washington.
The language about Pakistan, which was mentioned eight times in the policy document and twice in Trump’s speech on his administration strategy, was very much similar to that in the policy for South Asia and Afghanistan announced in August. One immediate inference is that the extensive engagement between the two sides after the announcement of the regional strategy, which had deeply upset Pakistan, has failed to change the way Washington looks at the country that is so crucial to its endeavours in Afghanistan.
Those privy to the briefing Army Chief Gen Qamar Bajwa gave to the Senate Committee suggest that the prevailing mood is that of defiance to American pressure
National Security Strategy’s page number 50 is more of a charge sheet against Pakistan. Although couched in diplomatic lingo, a single reading of the document leaves no doubt that Pakistan is being accused of destabilizing behaviour, having presence of terrorists on its soil that threaten US interests, and that it has not sufficiently proven to be a responsible possessor of nuclear arsenal.
President Trump meanwhile continues to be humiliating towards Pakistan. He is not exhorting Pakistan to address his security concerns, but is instead telling Islamabad that it would have to comply because it had been paid for it. “We must see decisive action against terrorist groups operating on their territory. And we make massive payments every year to Pakistan. They have to help,” Trump said.
The phrasing is, if not more, as bad as his Fort Myers speech in which he had accused Pakistan of taking “billions and billions of dollars”, but providing sanctuaries to terrorists that the US is fighting. One cannot expect Trump to be any better, but his fixation that Pakistan is a sort of insincere gun for hire is not only unhelpful, but in fact very dangerous.
In the White House’s view, the way forward lies in Pakistan earnestly helping the US achieve its “counterterrorism goals” and it believes that “no partnership can survive a country’s support for militants and terrorists who target a partner’s own service members and officials”.
More troubling is that it’s not just Trump being tough on Pakistan. And unlike the perception some in Rawalpindi like to propagate, that generals at the Pentagon were sympathetic towards Pakistan, the thinking in the American defense establishment is no different than that on the executive side.
The latest report submitted by the Pentagon to Congress provides an insight into how the American military is thinking about this relationship. It says: “We must see fundamental changes in the way Pakistan deals with terrorist safe-havens in its territory. To induce that change, we will work across the US Government, using a range of tools to expand our cooperation with Pakistan in areas where our interests converge and to take unilateral steps in areas of divergence.”
The resort to “unilateral steps” would be something deeply worrying for Pakistani leaders. In the military sense it could be anything from drone strikes to direct action against suspected targets.
The US leadership, while analyzing the situation in this part of the world and developing its response strategies, is unfathomably missing the bigger picture. Pakistan faces a serious threat from India on the Eastern side, whereas on the Western side, India has employed proxies and is deeply involved with hostile Afghan intelligence agency NDS to destabilize it through terrorism. These are some of Pakistan’s legitimate security concerns that the US is unwilling to address. Compounding the situation, India is being bestowed the role of a regional power or a US policeman in the area that has emboldened Delhi’s hegemonic designs.
The American hardline therefore is counter-productive. Instead of bringing about a change in its behaviour, it pushes Pakistan further into the shell so it feels more insecure. Pakistan, moreover, knows the leverage it enjoys and America’s limitations. It would therefore be too simplistic to think that the US could easily browbeat Islamabad into compliance.
It is not surprising that Pakistani officials have now started responding to Trump and his administration’s rhetoric in the same language. National Security Adviser Lt Gen (retired) Nasser Khan Janjua says a two-front security threat has been created for Pakistan and the US is “exporting war and perpetual instability to South Asia.”
Those privy to the briefing Army Chief Gen Qamar Bajwa gave to the Senate Committee suggest that the prevailing mood is that of defiance to American pressure.
Foreign Office reaction to the US policy was, nevertheless, more measured as it rejected “unsubstantiated allegations”, “unfounded accusations”, trivializing of Pakistan’s sacrifices in the fight against terrorism. It also reminded the US of the terrorism sponsored by India and Afghanistan and that its designation of a country as a regional power holds no value unless that state does so through its conduct and positive contributions.
It is still not too late to make amends. The window would probably shut when the Pentagon goes ahead with the threat of unilateral action.
The writer is a freelance journalist based in Islamabad and can be reached at mamoonarubab@gmail.com and @bokhari_mr