New Pakistan and US interests: First contact.

In a few days from now US Secretary of States Mike Pompeo  and the US Chairman of Joint Chief of Staff, General Joseph Dunford will arrive in Islamabad for the first face to face contact between the new govenrment of Imran Khan and US officials. Initial comments from Washington are that South Asia is vital to US presence in the region and fighting terrorism is high on the agenda. After the Pakistan visit Pompeo will head to New Delhi where he will joined by the US Secretary of Defense Mattis for a two plus two meeting with Indian officials and a number of agreements, including defense matters are expected to be signed.

This visit can be viewed with an open mind considering that the PTI government has not yet dealt with specifics on their foreign policy agenda. To that extent the US will see the visit as exploring the landscape of the PTI government on issues of terrorism, stability in Afghanistan and gauge the acceptance of the new government by the powerful Pakistan military. The Indian meetings by US officials could well be seen as a pressure tactic to let Pakistan's new government know that India and the US can forge a relationship which could not necessarily be in the best interests of Pakistan unless they tow the US line, especially on terrorism.

Imran Khan and his government a likely to view the issues fundamentally different from the way Pompeo and Washington see matters. In Khan's eyes the issue of fighting terrorism cannot result in Pakistan being a client state to the will of the US, or for that matter anyone. Does this mean they will continue with fighting terrorism? I would like to believe yes, but not in the way that the US would want a free hand in conducting operations on Pakistani soil. Imran is a fiercely independent person and to him respecting Pakistan's sovereignty will be paramount.

For the US the issue will be of trusting Pakistan's commitment to fight terrorism and their constant fear that to some extent there could be collaboration between Pakistani officials and the terrorists to fore warn them of impending attacks. General Bajwa and the military high command in the Pakistani military are radically different from the people who followed Gen Zia ul Haq and his Islamist agenda which did mean closeness to the Taliban. After the horrifying attacks on Pakistanis by the Afghan based Pakistan Taliban any notion of the military wanting to help these elements is out of the question. Imran is most likely going to convey this to the visitors and in a sense he has a better card to play. If the US does not accept the position of his government then he can simply say we will take care of what is within our borders and others look after their borders.

Unlike the PPP and PMLN governments before him Imran Khan has no misgivings that the US will be an evergreen ally of Pakistan. In his eyes the cost Pakistan has paid in over 54,000 casualties from the war on terror is far more than the $20 billion of aid given to Pakistan by the US. This does not mean he is not a realist. Pakistan does want stability in Afghanistan but he will be equally forceful to emphasize that Pakistan is also the victim of cross border attacks from Afghanistan. On the Indian side while Kashmir, like always will be discussed, it is more likely that Islamabad will do well to present the evidence of Indian interference in Baluchistan.

It is also clear that the US and India would know that with the CEPC agreement with China there is no doubt that China now has an economic and political interest in stability in Baluchistan, where the main port to be used by CPEC is based. India shelters one of the Baluch dissident leaders from where he has been trying to stir trouble in Baluchistan. I would not be surprised soon after Mr Pompeo leaves a high ranking visit from Beijing will emerge. It is natural that the closer India and the US become the closer will China and Pakistan be.

While we are not dealing with Cold War politics and alliances, there is a sense within Pakistan for some generations now that the US does not really regard its links to Islamabad as a high priority. Yet so long as US has a military presence in Afghanistan having Pakistan friend is vital to maintain supplies and support from and through Pakistan. Imran Khan has indicated that he would ike to work with Kabul on a new footing and this would mean an admission by them that terrorist elements from their side of the border do cross into Pakistan to commit heinous crimes. I do believe that as Pakistan and Afghanistan work out a better relationship the US will also see the utility of treating Pakistan more as an ally rather than as a lackey.

In essence Washington can see its relationship with Islamabad through the clouded glass of past perceptions, or it can accept that in the new vision of Pakistan Imran Khan and his government could present the opportunity for a fresh start. This will need a new approach to cooperation on issues of mutual concern and for its part it is more likely that Pakistan too will not rely on US economic and military aid as much as it has in the past. Pakistan will also have to show its commitment to a new approach to regional politics and a serious desire to reduce tensions in the region. While thorny issues with both Afghanistan and India may remain the embracing of dialogue and reducing tensions will determine the depth and sincerity of this new approach.

On a note of caution nothing major would come out of this first contact other than each getting a sense of the other side. I am also convinced that the US side might well be impressed that indeed a new Pakistan is emerging and with it they in Washington will have to also develop a new strategy for South Asia. I would imagine admitting that Pakistan has been a victim of terrorism also is a good start.

Pakistan-USA relations in a 'New' Pakistan.

Relations between Pakistan and USA are steeped in the history of the Cold War, the Russian invasion of Pakistan and recently through the prism of the War on Terror. Imran Khan, the newly elected Prime Minister, has promised a 'New' Pakistan and with it is the implication of a new policy framework for relations with the major powers, and especially USA. There is more than stifled anxiety in Washington over the new Pakistan and the US press, while mixed in its response of Khan's election victory has been quick to say that 'a dangerous Pakistan has suddenly got more dangerous.'

Imran Khan, while no stalwart of foreign policy affairs, is not a fool to take on the might of the US, who may well have sympathizers within the Pakistan military, but he is neither going to be a push over. As much as Islamabad will want to reframe the relationship, Washington will also have to accept that Khan would be open to redefining a relationship along new lines. Khan wants the label of Pakistan being a 'hired gun' to be removed through a new policy of engagement. To the US policy makers the strategic needs of Pakistan are secondary and something that Khan perhaps knows too well. To the US the war on terror is their number one policy objective and they see Pakistan as the destabilizing pawn in their efforts to bring stability to Afghanistan.

From Khan's perspective the wanton usurpation of Pakistan's sovereignty through drone strikes, which have caused large number of civilian casualties, need to stop. In an interview in 2012 Khan, then just a hopeful for leadership, spelled out some of his thoughts on this subject. His main view was the use of Pakistan army as a hired gun within Pakistan had resulted in a degree of alienation of the people from the government within Pakistan. He did not say it but implied that fight the problem of terrorism cooperation was needed and based on proof against the suspects it should be left to Pakistan to deal with the problem. However, it was also felt that the encouragement of the Pakistan Taliban by Afghan elements across the border also needed to be reined in.

The US has always been suspicious of the ties between Pakistan military and some of the suspected terrorist groups. While the policy of the military has been to eradicate the problem of terrorism, especially after the attack on school in Pakistan, there has always been an element within Pakistan, born from the Zia era, who supported the terrorist elements. Since the terrorists turned on the Pakistan population and with the passage of time such elements within the military have either been purged or have no conclusive influence in policy. The US needs to have an open and closer dialogue on this subject with the new government.

Imran Khan has in the past advocated a dialogue with the militant Islamist groups and something that has labelled him as an active supporter of such elements. Khan will need to spell his position on this subject more clearly, while one would agree with him that the fight is not for land but for the minds and hearts of the young generation. He argues that drone strikes drive the mind and hearts of young people into the lap of the militants. On a broad front one cannot not dispute this argument, but by the same token Imran Khan has to frame a clear and cohesive policy on dealing with the militant elements within Pakistan.

Khan, if reports are to be believed, has the support within the military to carry his agenda forward. He can also use this influence within the military to draw up a policy on dealing with militants. It will then arm Pakistan with a stronger moral argument to press Washington to influence Kabul to stop their support for the Taliban elements from Pakistan who are based on Afghan soil. If the US wants stability within Afghanistan then recognizing that Pakistan also has a role, however small, to play in this that strategy.

On the broader front the two countries will need to look at relations through a new perspective. Khan has been on record that he is against the proliferation of nuclear weapons, he wants an economic agenda to be the forefront of his foreign relations as he and his advisors realize that being an economically weak nuclear power is counter productive to the country. The US policy makers have a chance to reset their relations with Pakistan if they are willing to see that aside from the rhetoric from Imran Khan, he sees a mutually respectful relationship with Pakistan is possible.  Washington will need to learn that rather than tell Pakistan what to do, they will need to learn to discuss what needs to be done and then develop a consensus through discussion.

The flip side is that US policy, especially under President Trump, may just decide they can ignore Pakistan's role in the region and draw harder lines in dealing with Islamabad. While one would reason that sane minds within the State department in the US would argue such a policy would hurt US interests in the region, it is a possibility that Trump would ignore them. In such a scenario US policy would gravitate towards India, and Pakistan would continue to rely on its historical ally China. Thus Pakistan could well be the policy battleground between Washington and Beijing.

 In the coming months the roadmap on Pakistan-US relations will become more visible, and no matter how it may have been in the past there will have to be a fresh approach from both sides. Imran Khan would do well to ponder upon this and set out his road map and then leave it for Washington to respond. There will need to be an acceptance within US stakeholders that Imran Khan's priority will be economic development of his country and side by side the reining in of the terror groups because economic development in the backdrop of bomb blasts and domestic violence would erode public confidence in his government.

To move forward stereo types will have to be washed aside, the stakeholders on each side will need to discuss the new format of relations in depth and agree to disagree on some elements and agree to agree on others. Pakistanis also need to accept that the US has high stakes in the future of Pakistan, the trick is to make sure that the vision of that future is not too divergent.

Trumps Afghan Policy.

President Trump's time in office was conspicuous thus far by the absence of a cogent and clear statement on foreign policy. He seemed to tweet his foreign policy feelings and yet his campaign promise of a new policy of NATO, Afghanistan etc were realms of international affairs he could ignore for long. I would also suspect that barricaded by the Russian probe and the chaos in the White House Trump needed to do something dramatic. The Afghan policy can best be received with mixed emotions. While, from an American perspective, Afghanistan seems to be a thorn on the side of a super power like USA, history would tell us that this barren harsh land has been irksome to both the British and the Soviet Union in the past.

Insofar as the intent to have a surge of US forces in Afghanistan is driven by America's strategic objectives, which are murky in terms of Afghanistan, has its own merits. One can argue if the original aim was to rid the world of Osama bin Laden, and that since done during the Obama administration remaining there is in a sense strategically futile. The argument runs that the area is the home for both radical groups like the Taliban and recently the ISIS, so there is a strategic aim to rid them of a home base. One cannot argue against that, however to assert the US is not into nation building but fighting terror is all fine, and something even Obama asserted, a weak nation is more prone to be fragmented by terror groups.

The core of the policy seems to be a military solution. However, we all know from Vietnam to Lebanon that one cannot have a military solution to what is essentially a political problem. In the case of Afghanistan it is the political vacuums that has existed now for over four decades. Trumps open invitation to India to help fill the gap is in a sense short sighted because while India can provide economic and trade based interaction the core of Afghan society is deeply Islamic and staunchly tribal which would be at odds with a Hindu dominate India. Yes India has a role to play but with Pakistan in between the two countries the solution would have been more for both Pakistan and India to be jointly encouraged to stabilise the region.

This leads Trump and his host of sycophants to make statements about Pakistan being the 'safe haven' for the Taliban and the Haqqani network. Such an argument ignores that all shades of the current terrorist groups were created and supported by virtually all the current powers that are fighting them. They were created with the aim of fighting the Russians and Pakistan was the conduit to fund and train them. Yes indeed Pakistan had its own motives in this and when Afghanistan slipped into civil war after the Soviet defeat, they with other allies promoted and created the current Taliban with the idea of replacing the crumbling power structure in Kabul.

The fact remains from 2001 most countries including Pakistan, somewhat reluctantly, took to curbing these terrorist groups and both Afghanistan and Pakistan suffered a series of terrorist attacks. Few understand that Pakistan has suffered over 7000 military deaths and over 65,000 civilians killed and 3.4 million people displaced. Afghanistan during the same period has suffered 61,000 military deaths and 20,000 civilian deaths. It is obvious that Pakistan has borne the brunt of the war on terror no less than Afghanistan and thus to go on talking of the country as a safe haven is incorrect. The TTP (the Taliban faction that attacks Pakistani targets) is based in Afghanistan, just as the Haqqani network which attacks into Afghanistan is based in Miranshah, the tribal north of Pakistan. In 2014 Pakistan launched an offensive against the Haqqani Network and other groups and in November 2014 Gen J Anderson of the US command said that the Pakistan offensive had seriously reduced the ability of the Taliban to conduct offensive operations in Afghanistan.

There is no denying that both Afghanistan and Pakistan want to curb terrorism but in an environment of accusing each other this will not work. The porous border between the two countries is next to impossible to control even though Pakistan has three times as many border check posts on their side compared to the Afghans. I would have felt that Trump should encourage Pakistan and Afghanistan to work together rather than signal Pakistan as partially responsible for the situation in Afghanistan.

On a strategic note such a policy of isolating Pakistan in this vital region will only drive them closer to China, who has been Pakistan's closest ally and China has a long standing border dispute with India too. Many may think that US aid to Pakistan is a leverage but with $750 million is not enough of a tool to change policy alone. Indeed Pakistan needs to do more to fight terrorism and by the same token the world needs to understand that as many people have died to terrorism in Pakistan as any of the countries in the front line of this war. Excluding Pakistan and making it insecure with overtures to India may not really be the best policy.

The single objective of fighting terrorism in Afghanistan is noble in its own context but we have to be realistic that such a war will also bring destruction and suffering to more people. Indeed the balance will be whether this escalation brings more suffering to the people on the ground or the continued attacks by the likes of Taliban do the same. There has to be a plan to bring administrative order, district by district, all across Afghanistan as the Taliban and terror groups are ousted. Merely wining the war and not creating a politically and socially workable system will only remove a threat today but will create the fertile ground for someone equally terrible like the Taliban, to replace it.

North Korea: Brinkmanship that could go wrong.

When studying for my Masters in International Relations one of the cases studies we worked on was the Cuban Missile Crisis. It remains a masterful studying of managing brinkmanship and the art of the graduated response. Kennedy and Khrushchev in that crisis were a blink away from nuclear war and yet we realize that throughout the crisis a process of graduated response and measured strategic analysis was used. From Oct 15th 1962, when the Soviet missiles were spotted in Cuba till Oct 22 1962, when Kennedy made his famous speech asking the Soviets to back down, numerous meetings were held with the NSC and an EXXCOMM was set up and Congressional leaders were consulted on each of the steps.

One of the options that the US Joint Chief of Staff recommended and supported was an all out invasion, something even key Congressional leaders supported, Kennedy decided to use a series of graduated responses from a blockade to diplomacy to resolve the crisis. Indeed, key US allies were briefed on the morning of the 22nd of October BEFORE Kennedy made his speech and side by side back door diplomatic channels were opened to the Soviets to resolve the crisis. By October 28th 1962 the crisis had been defused and the world stepped back from what would have been a major outbreak of war.

Today we a different form of brinkmanship in the stand off between USA and North Korea. It might be more realistic to say its a show down between President Trump and the Korean despot Kim Jong Un, the latter being in his mid thirties with a panache for missiles and nuclear warheads. Unlike Kennedy in 1962, President Trump has taken to twitter and makes speeches about 'fire and fury' and hopes his rhetoric will be enough to get an equally irrational Kim Jong Un to back down. While there is not denying that any military conflict between North Korea and USA may well result in the total destruction of Kim Jong Un's regime and sadly also his nation. However, as one sided as it may be the fact that Kim Jong Un only needs to make sure that one, yes only one, missile armed with a nuclear warhead lands somewhere close to USA or one of its allies.

Analysts, military and non military, keep telling us that North Koreans would not be foolish enough to take such a risk which would destroy their country. First of all its not the North Koreans taking the risk, its Kim Jong Un, and frankly does he care if a million people are killed when he knows he himself will be taken out? Second, as the twitter tirade continues there is no guarantee that Kim Jong Un may well be taking these tweets more seriously than they are and lacking a sense of humor may just feel any one of them is enough of a hint that the US will strike first. Kim Jong Un knows well that if the US has first strike then his ability to have an effective counter strike will be severely curtailed and may be not even possible.

The danger therefore is that Trump, without even meaning it, may well start the hostilities, and perhaps in that process fulfill his wish to be a war-time President. Factoring China's response into this equation of possibilities creates a puzzle that will take far longer than the 20 odd minutes to have missiles land on some hapless people somewhere in the world. While Rex Tillerson is certainly trying to bring in a modicum of diplomacy to the table, it seems that he is fighting an uphill battle. One is not sure of the NSC and Congress has been consulted on the state of affairs.

The flip side is that the ground work for a diplomatic solution does not seem to be visible. What does one negotiate with? Offer Kim Jong Un there will no regime change if he agrees to give up missiles and nuclear warheads? Well that was the promise to Gaddaffi of Libya and he agreed to the deal only to be ousted soon after. Kim for sure will not give up his war toys, so some middle ground needs to be sought out and he is brash enough not to really be concerned about how much his people suffer under sanctions. In a sense Kim Jong Un is like a suicide bomber he has nothing to lose and therefore there is nothing that can be offered to him in a negotiation.