Pakistan US Talks: Portents of a New Order in the Subcontinent?

 

Two women- Hillary Clinton and her Pakistani counterpart, Hina Rabbani Khar- met in the United States today. The context and the agenda of the meeting was a stock taking, review and attempts to improve relations between the sole superpower and Pakistan. The meeting took place against the backdrop of massive protests against the mischievous and provocative film,’ The Innocence of Muslims’ in Pakistan. The country wide protests exacted a death toll of 23 people. In a way, this portrait stands as a metaphor for the contemporary world: a world defined by dialectic of progress and conflict. On the one hand, women- an oppressed lot historically- are, by and large  , becoming more or less equal partners in society in many parts of the world and on the other the conflict and chaos continues to define the human condition. This, however, is not the core thrust of this article.

 

What is of concern and interest here is the implications and consequences of the potential rapprochement between the estranged states of Pakistan and the United States on peace within and without. By peace within, the reference is to peace in the subcontinent- peace within Pakistan (a state that appears to be at war with itself), peace between nuclear armed neighbors, India and Pakistan and peace in Kashmir. The peace without formulation is a reference to global peace and security. Pakistan, its orientation and foreign policy posture figures in all these scenarios. A positive orientation of the Pakistani state is contingent on the nature of its relations with the United States. It , therefore, falls on the United States, to impress upon Pakistan the merits of a salubrious and a salutary approach. The question then is what should inform the thrust of talks between the official representatives of the Pakistani state and the United States- Hillary Clinton and Hina Rabbani Khar?

 

It would be picture perfect for the United States to impress upon Pakistan to change and alter the nature and trajectory of the Pakistani state. This would, at a stroke, change the political, geopolitical and security dynamic in the subcontinent and how Pakistan relates to it and the world. This , however, may not be diplomatically appropriate and prudent at this point in time.  What then, given the impracticality of this macro objective could or should form the thrust of talks from the United State’s side?

 

First, the United States should assuage Pakistan’s fears about being dumped in the post ‘global war on terror’ world. It should be emphasized and relayed to Pakistan’s real power structure through Ms.Khar that Pakistan will continue to be valuable ally; not merely  a partner. This will pre empt Pakistan’s potential turn into a spoiler state in the region and beyond, making its existence and value felt through negative actions. This premise should be followed by demonstrating a path to Pakistan that would redound positively to it , the region and the world. (This should not be in the nature and form of a ‘to do’ list). Pakistan should understand and come to appreciate that this path is in its own interests and would allow it to come out of the self created morass it is in.

 

Specifically, the components of this path should be: improved and better relations with India, disavowal of meddling and propping up proxies in Afghanistan, reorientation of Pakistan’s political economy and its integration into the global economy and a foreign policy posture that is not conflictual. Better relations with India should mean Pakistan dropping its claim on Kashmir and arriving at a modus vivendi with India over the dispute. This may mean crystallizing the Line of Control as an international border, accepting and coming to terms with the political process in Kashmir. This would, perhaps, at a stroke, remove the major sticking point between India and Pakistan and set the rapprochement and the peace process between the two arch rivals in stone.  The carrot or the incentive that the United States could offer Pakistan is its good offices in suggesting to India about fresh thinking over Kashmir. This may mean comprehensive empowerment of Kashmiris. And this may allow Pakistan a face saving exit from Kashmir which it could sell to its people.

 

United States could also make it clear to Pakistan that while its security concerns vis a vis Afghanistan may be genuine  but it cannot and should not mean meddling and propping up proxies in Afghanistan in the name of strategic depth.  A fresh approach toward Afghanistan should be emphasized.

 

In conjunction, these suggestions to  Pakistan and their acceptance by the Pakistani power structure may turn out to be just the conceptual rejiggings that allow Pakistan to morph into a normal state-at peace with itself and the world. The benefits would be obvious: a new paradigm of peace and prosperity will dawn on the subcontinent, the conflictual dynamic may morph into a cooperative one and the region may collectively enter history liberating its peoples from the yoke of perpetual conflict, misery , fear and poverty. This salubrious scenario is worth an attempt. And it is to this that the United States should devote itself to. Time is of essence.  Pakistan may be in a listening mode. It is exigent then that this opportunity not be wasted. Sagacious and wise diplomacy- something that the United States has no dearth of- is the need of the hour. The opportunity is too good to be wasted.