Zardari's Speech at the United Nations: Who was the President really addressing?

 

The president of Pakistan, Asif Ali Zardari’s speech at the United Nations was interesting on a range of levels. Zardari drew attention to Pakistan’s contribution(s) in the global war on terror(GWOT), the sacrifices Pakistan had made in this war and how Pakistan had suffered and become a victim of terrorism as well. He then made a plea ostensibly to the international community: he requested that given Pakistan itself had become a victim of terrorism and given how the country had been at the forefront of GWOT, it should not ‘ be asked to do more’. Zardari then meandered onto the core sticking point between India and Kashmir.

 

 He highlighted and emphasized the obvious and posited, among other things, that, ‘Kashmir remains a symbol of failures, rather than strengths of the United Nation’s system’.  He further added that outstanding disputes and conflicts between India and Pakistan would be resolved in an environment of cooperation. And those interconnections and linkages between the countries of the region would be salubrious. Zardari then went on an elegiac on the past nature of relations between the United States and Pakistan. He implicitly accused the United States of having supported dictators whose rule in Pakistan had been disastrous to both the Pakistani state and society.

 

Analysis and breakdown of these assertions yields interesting insights and a set of questions. The major insight is that Pakistan is telling the world that it has embarked on course correction and review and is serious about it. The set of questions that these assertions give rise to are: who is President Zadari really addressing and why is he doing so? What really is the import of these assertions? And what should the international community (read the United States) read into this and consequently do?

 

The real audience for/of Zardari’s speech is the sole superpower, the United States. Zardari- probably mouthing what the power structure of Pakistan wants him to- is incorporating the changes in world politics, the impotence of the United Nations and in recognition of the United States’ power and influence is hinting to the US that Pakistan will conform and correspond to a conflict resolution process that the United States is happy with. He appears to be suggesting that while Kashmir remains a dispute it will be attempted to be resolved amicably between India and Pakistan. This is a salubrious development and powers that be in India should deem this as an opening. And, in the final analysis, it appears to reflect a change in the foreign policy stance and posture of the Pakistani state.

 

Zardari’s plea to , bluntly speaking, the United States, to not to ask Pakistan, to do more in the war against terrorism and the assertion that Pakistan has suffered   a lot casts Pakistan in the mantle of a victim. This narrative of victimhood, by the way, is a theme that underpins both the formation and nature of the Pakistani state. It then is a travesty that Zardari reiterates and harps on this. More to the point, Zardari’s plea is hypocritical. The Pakistani state nurtured and harbored its youth bulge and its once extremist fringe for use in Afghanistan and against India. This later morphed into a Frankenstein’s monster. The Pakistani state is essentially confronting a monster of its own making. And it should come out of this morass on its own with some support from the United States. The plea then is gratuitous and uncalled for.

 

Insofar as his assertions on the nature of relations between Pakistan and the United States are concerned, Zardari’s accusations are a tad rich. Interstate relations are complex and it cannot really be said or implied that patronage and support by an important power shores up dictators or other odious regimes. Yes; foreign recognition accords legitimacy to a regime but in the final analysis, it is the people of a nation and the nature of a country’s political system that determines the type and coloration of a regime.  Again, if there is entity or power that blame can be apportioned to, it is the state of Pakistan.

 

The United States-the real audience of Zardari and by inference, the Pakistani power structure-, after sieving clutter and noise from Zardari’s speech, should quietly talk and reach out to the power structure of Pakistan. It should be made clear to this establishment that the United States will continue to support the transformation and review of Pakistan’s foreign policy postures. It also needs to be made clear that the United States will be attuned to new developments and watch them carefully. This may lock in the reforms that the Pakistani state is undertaking and these then may be difficult to roll back. The ball is now in the court of the sole superpower. It is hoped that prudence and sobriety inform the approach that it will take in its present and future relations with Pakistan. Pakistan may be at a strategic inflection point. A lot depends on the posture and policy that the United States adopts. Let is adopt the ones that are prudent, appropriate and germane.