The Difficult Road Back to Strategic Assertion

It was the sharp reaction within the higher echelons of the Pakistani Army to the Kerry-Lugar ‘conditionalities’, and the brazen attempt to assert control over Pakistan’s Armed Forces and the ISI and dictate Pakistan’s security priorities, which signalled that ’the worm had turned’.

This was followed by a period of ‘inaction’ by the Pakistani Army on Afghanistan. As the TTP and the Afghan Taliban made advances, strident statements emanated from Washington, issuing the improbable warning that Islamabad itself could be overrun by the Islamic radicals ‘only sixty miles away’.

When the Pakistan Army’s operation was launched in Swat, the Western media presumed it was in response to American pressure. In fact, it was undertaken only when the local political leaders gave up their naive bid for accommodation with the TTP and public opinion in Pakistan turned against the militants due to their acts of brutality and barbarism. There was minimal coordination with the US.

The operations focused only on the TTP not the Afghan Taliban. Later, Pakistan’s high command clearly communicated that it would not relent in its priority aim of deterring India and responding to its conventional and nuclear arms build-up.

The declaration issued by the National Command Authority on 13 December, which, among other things, demanded restoration of nuclear equality with India and opposed any early negotiations on a Treaty to halt fissile material production, was an important public reflection of Pakistan’s newly revived national assertiveness, at least on security issues. The ‘red lines’ drawn by the Pakistani Army resulted in a series of intense consultations between it, the US military and political officials. US emissaries made private amends to the ISI for earlier ‘rogue agency’ insults. These consultations coincided with, and no doubt contributed to, the comprehensive policy review on Afghanistan and Pakistan conducted by the Obama Administration.

This review, by all accounts, led to the conclusion that, after a final escalated military effort to put the Afghan insurgency on the defensive, the US should seek an honourable way to withdraw most, if not all, it’s forces from Afghanistan before the next US Presidential elections, including through negotiations with the Afghan Taliban. An equally important, though less publicised, conclusion was that Pakistan’s role would be critical in implementing both the military and political components of the new Afghanistan strategy and Islamabad’s legitimate national concerns and interests would need to be accommodated.

The ensuing overtures to Pakistan culminated in the ‘Strategic Dialogue’ held in Washington in March 2010. For this dialogue, Pakistan reportedly conveyed a fifty-eight-page document listing the outcomes it sought from the dialogue. Significantly, the preparations for the dialogue, and the most important meetings in Washington, were conducted by the Pakistan Army Chief.

In Pakistan’s ruling circles, there is evidently considerable satisfaction at the progress in the Washington dialogue and the subsequent interaction between the Pakistani delegation and President Obama in the October round in Washington. There is a belief in Islamabad that the American strategic outlook on Pakistan has changed fundamentally; that it is now responsive to Pakistan’s national concerns on Afghanistan, India, the nuclear issue and economic and trade issues. Thirteen sectoral groups have been discussing specific areas for cooperation and reporting to the principals.

Hopefully, Pakistan’s civilian and military leadership will not allow the warm words and courtesies extended by US leaders to create undue euphoria and unrealistic expectations. Islamabad must make a realistic 306evaluation of what is likely to be achieved through this latest attempt at close engagement with Washington. Pakistan-US convergence can be achieved on Afghanistan, al Qaeda and the Taliban. The US needs Pakistan to execute a politically acceptable exit strategy from Afghanistan. In turn, Pakistan requires US cooperation to construct a post­American order in Afghanistan which is not inimical to Pakistan’s national interests. Pakistan-US cooperation against al Qaeda and the TTP is similarly essential for both. Yet, even in the context of counter-terrorism, there may be limits and difficulties as evident from the fallout of the May 2010 Times Square bombing attempt, with the US attempt to shift the goal posts with Pakistan after this incident by demanding early operations in North Waziristan.

It was very clear from the two rounds of the Washington dialogue that the US is neither able nor inclined to assist Pakistan on India, Kashmir or the nuclear issue. Vague promises were conveyed by US officials. Quiet US advice may have led to the Thimphu meeting between the Pakistani and Indian Premiers. But India has not been persuaded to resume the broad based ‘composite’ dialogue; nor shown the slightest inclination to address the Kashmir dispute or arms control and security issues.

At the ‘Nuclear Summit’ in April 2010 President Obama scrupulously avoided past demonisation of Pakistan. Nevertheless, Pakistan was asked to agree to the start of negotiations on the Treaty to ban fissile material production, apparently in exchange for the unnecessary and non-deliverable demand made by Pakistan that the US ‘recognise’ its nuclear ‘status’. Pakistan already has recognition as a de facto nuclear weapon state. It does not need, nor will it get, de jure recognition from the US, or the international community, in the foreseeable future. Nor will any ‘recognition’ by the US imply that the overt and covert attempts to constrain and neutralise Pakistan’s nuclear deterrence capabilities will end.

Clearly, within the present US strategic parameters, it is unlikely that it will help Pakistan to address the more fundamental challenges posed by India—Kashmir, the conventional military balance, credible nuclear deterrence. On these issues, Pakistan will need to formulate and implement its own independent responses to protect and promote its national interests. A policy change on these issues in New Delhi, Washington and other capitals will come about only once Pakistan displays its determination to assert its own interests.

Kashmir

Jammu and Kashmir remain vital for Pakistan for multiple reasons: • Identity: as a Muslim majority area of British India which, according to the criteria for Partition, should have been a part of Pakistan. • Territory: gain or loss of an area bigger than Belgium. • People: ethnically, religiously, culturally and historically linked to the people of Pakistan rather than India. • Strategy: the only direct land link to Pakistan’s ally, China.

Nowhere is Pakistan’s strategic decline more visible than on the Kashmir dispute. Due to a series of policy mistakes, India’s palpably unjust position on Kashmir now evokes greater international understanding and sympathy than the legally and morally correct position traditionally taken by Pakistan, i.e. that the future of Kashmir should be decided by the Kashmiri people, through a free and fair referendum conducted by the UN, as prescribed by several UN Security Council resolutions.

The Kashmiri revolt against Indian oppression that erupted in December 1989 was a golden opportunity for Pakistan to press for a fair and durable solution for the dispute. It was lost. Pakistan, still under the heady aura of the ‘jihadi’ victory over the Soviets in Afghanistan, opted to support religiously motivated groups to spearhead the Kashmiri freedom struggle. Soon, these groups assumed a life and agenda of their own, often inimical to the aspirations and culture of the Kashmiris. Indian intelligence infiltrated these groups. The acts of barbarism perpetrated by some of them e.g. the Al- Faran incident in the early 1990s were duly exploited by India to press for the delegitimisation of the Kashmiri freedom struggle. Following 9/11, and the attack on the Indian Parliament, Pakistan was obliged, under US pressure, to halt ‘cross-border’ support to the Kashmiris. No concessions were secured from India in exchange for this commitment.

Although it is axiomatic that negotiations pursued from a position of weakness cannot yield a fair result, an ill-considered endeavour was launched—through back-door diplomacy entrusted to a close aide of President Pervez Musharraf with no knowledge of India-Pakistan relations or 308Kashmir—to seek a compromise that, we know now, would have confirmed the status quo, if not worsened it. Fortunately, India delayed acceptance of this ‘compromise’. The political turmoil in Pakistan after the 2007 Chief Justice crisis, rendered the exercise infructious.

Pakistan’s ability to negotiate a just solution for Kashmir is no better today than five years ago. A credible freedom struggle cannot be revived quickly. For the sake of its international image, its internal stability and its socio-economic aspirations, Pakistan has no choice but to suppress the violent proclivities of the jihadi groups.

At the same time, there is also no compulsion on Pakistan to concede its traditional position on Kashmir. Pakistan cannot impose a Kashmir solution on India. But nor can India impose a solution on Pakistan. The persistence of the status quo may not be a desirable situation, particularly for the oppressed Kashmiris. But they have displayed remarkable resilience. They have not given up their aspiration to be free of Indian rule. Pakistan can do no less than to respect their aspirations. Sooner or later, the Kashmiris will revolt again against India’s rule. Pakistan should be in a position to help them at such time to achieve their aspirations. Meanwhile, India’s occupation of Kashmir locks up almost a third of its land force, enhancing Pakistan’s ability to balance India’s numerically larger army.

Pakistan’s policy on Kashmir should go back to the future, Islamabad should: one, reaffirm its fundamental position, i.e. a resolution of Kashmir can come about only through the free exercise of the right of self-determination by the people of Jammu and Kashmir; two, express open and active support for the Kashmir groups and leaders who favour integration with Pakistan or separation from India and help to unite them under a common and coherent political platform, hence Pakistan should not fear the call for Kashmiri independence, since an independent Kashmir, however unlikely, will always be pro-Pakistan; three, assert its moral, political and legal right to support the Kashmir freedom struggle against India; four, denounce terrorism against civilians and non- combatants and break all links with groups which resort to terrorism; five, instead of pleading for a dialogue which is not likely to be successful, refrain from a dialogue until India halts its human rights violations and oppression in occupied Kashmir (and its subversion in Pakistan); six, publicise and hold India accountable, in international forums and the 309media, for its continued suppression of the Kashmiris and its gross violations of human rights in occupied Kashmir.

A bolder stance on Kashmir, based on international principles and the support of the Pakistani people, will not escalate the danger of a conflict so long as Pakistan’s conventional and nuclear deterrence capabilities remain credible. It will have several other advantages: enhance the rapport between the government and the people of Pakistan and between Pakistanis and Kashmiris; create a disincentive for India’s subversion within Pakistan; generate the political motivation for the major powers to intercede in evolving a just settlement for Kashmir and other issues that plague Pakistan-India relations.