Will isolation or international pressure make Pak act Amar Ujala 17 Oct 17
An interesting question presently doing the rounds is on whether Pak can be isolated globally for its policy of supporting terror groups or its strategic importance would preclude such an action or would only international pressure make it behave, despite Trump’s rhetoric of threatening it and India’s strong diplomatic initiatives. Post the outburst of Trump, pushing Pak into depression, it seems to have rediscovered its voice, especially after its Prime Minister met the US Vice President and their foreign minister met their secretary of state. Their major worry, post the remarks by Trump, was never international isolation, which it felt may never happen, but increased operating space within Afghanistan for India, which as perceived by Pak, could become a major threat to its security.
The announcement to give Pak one more opportunity by Jim Mattis, the US defence secretary, to show its desire for peace in the region, has raised doubts on US intentions and possible shift in strategic thought. The recent visit by a delegation led by the deputy assistant to the President and national security council senior director for South Asia, likely to be followed by top US diplomats to Pak this month is a sign of them reconsidering their approach.
Pak, acting on US inputs, freed a US citizen and his family from the clutches of the Haqqani network, sending a signal that it may be willing to act as per US demands. A question which remains unanswered is that the incident occurred on Pak soil, implying it continues to provide support to terror groups and that this was an enacted encounter, done to relay a message to the US, that it may be willing to change, provided some terms and conditions are met. Permitting the captors to escape, only further proves this theory. Since the information came from the US, had Pak not acted, it may have resulted in another Osama Laden type of operation, embarrassing the nation.
Donald Trump’s words of praise have been misconstrued in the press in both India and Pak as a change in US perception, but is not the case. It is merely a means of showing mild softening in outlook, which could reharden if another terror strike occurs in Afghanistan, mainly on NATO forces. US strategists are aware that Pak cannot be ignored but would need to be either threatened with diplomatic action or pressurized into changing its approach to terror groups based on US plans and desires.
The geostrategic location of Pak, as gifted to it by history, makes it an important player in the region. Its importance stems from it being the doorway to Central Asia, presently dominated by Russia, whose rich oil, gas, market and mineral reserves have yet to be fully tapped, a neighbour to Afghanistan, a part of the region where anti-west terror groups are gaining a strong foothold and neighbouring Iran, whom the US is seeking to contain.
Presently, oil and gas of the Central Asian Republics flow through Russia, which has the power to switch on and off the tap to Europe, thus precluding Europe from openly supporting US sanctions against it. With Iran and the US at loggerheads, the importance of Pak only increases.
The US is aware that its forces operating in Afghanistan can never be maintained by an airhead alone, either in Afghanistan or in any neighbouring country. They need a port and the nearest port is Karachi, as Iran would never be willing. Hence, Pak would always be an essential part of US strategy, despite any rhetoric. In addition is Pak’s position within the Islamic community, proximity to Saudi Arabia and China, as also its possession of nuclear weapons. Hence, Pak can be pressured to act, but not internationally isolated.
The only way to compel Pak to act would be to announce an enlarged role for India in Afghanistan. With India already training the Afghan army and police, as also providing developmental assistance and military equipment, Pak security establishment antennas are already raised. In their perception, an enhanced role would open doors for India to expand its footprint and could enable it to provide support to the TTP and the Baluch Liberation Army. Thus, India may become a bargaining lever for the US in the long term to threaten Pak. This implies that if the US promises to contain India’s role, Pak would ensure that the Taliban appear on the negotiating table and the Haqqani network contained.
Indian diplomatic offensive against Pak, in recent times, has been aimed at pushing it into a corner. Within the region, Pak has been ignored, when nations of SAARC refused to attend any summit there, unless it curbs terror groups. This action may impact its polity alone, not the deep state, as they have no respect for regional groupings, nor does it imply isolation. In the international arena India has successfully named and shamed Pak for its support to terror groups. The inclusion of Pak based groups in international documents, like the BRICS summit or the Indo-Japan joint declaration, may again affect its polity, but never change the strategic approach of its military.
Contrary to Indian success, Pak’s attempts of accusing India for supporting anti-Pak terror groups and Human Rights abuses in Kashmir or even ceasefire violations, has been a dismal failure. India’s success across the globe has ensured that there is not even a murmur against India. Kashmir has never been discussed in the UN for decades, no nation has accused India of supporting terror groups, other than China, seeking to support its traditional ally Pak. While Indian claims to POK have been accepted globally, Pak’s request for international mediation in Kashmir has found no takers. Thus, Pak’s voice causes no international impact, while India’s does. Hence, Pak has begun losing international support, facing pressures, but not isolation.
Internally Pak would never be at peace. Its unresolved borders with India and Afghanistan would ensure that unless it seriously desires to resolve its leftover historical baggage, it would never emerge as an economically secure nation. Its western provinces have historically been autonomous and seeking to subdue them, albeit by military force has led to widespread alienation. Its internal terrorism would continue. With the military ruling the nation from the backseat, the international community is aware whom it needs to pressurize.
Its nuclear weapons, which has seemingly provided Pak with security from a much more superior India, is also an international concern. The possibility of nonstate actors obtaining a nuclear device is a reality and a matter of concern for the international community. Its recent actions of shifting its nuclear weapons to multiple locations is a sign of internal fear that the international community may act, in case there is a danger of the weapons moving into the hands of non-state actors.
Pak would never face international isolation. However, India and the US have reduced Pak’s voice in the international arena, support for its claims ignored, thus pushing it into the background. Pressure would compel Pak to act, only if it feels increased security threat. The US would seek to convince Pak to act by playing the Indian card in Afghanistan, threaten to launch cross border operations employing drones or special forces and willingness to launch operations, in conjunction with Afghan forces against anti-Pak terror groups on Afghan soil.
About the Author
Maj Gen Harsha Kakkar
Retired Major General Indian Army