Civil Military
relations in Pakistan are no clearer, Saneela Jawad
“Security and foreign
policy is not in the civilian leaders’ control. The very fact that the
army, which in other countries is part of the government, is spoken of in
Pakistan as a separate and superior institution to the government in Pakistan
tells us everything,” said
Haqqani.
Pakistan’s security and military policy are covered in
ambiguity. The civil-military relationship has been a roller coaster ride for
many years and instead of changing the policies of the country the government
is not doing anything about improving its relations with its neighbouring countries
that have been falling apart due to this lack of clarity.
Not only that, it has drawn criticism from allies like
Afghanistan and the United States increasing the rift between the civil and
military leadership threatening the long-term diplomatic strain.
Pakistan’s increasing isolation from its neighbouring countries
has also shown the need for clearer policies.
Its variation between ‘good and bad Taliban’ and accusations
that Pakistan supports the Haqqani Network is a direct threat to peace and
stability in the region. Two years into Zarb-e-Azb, the state policy with
regard to the Haqqani Network is still not clear.
Former Pakistani ambassador to the United States Husain Haqqani
while talking to DNA said that Pakistan’s security establishment has always had
a certain ambiguity in its policies. Not only that, it presents its policy
different to the domestic audience than it does to the rest of the world.
“Pakistan would like its people to believe that the sole threat
to them comes from India and that the Pakistani military is capable of handling
this threat along with its allies (in earlier years the US, now the Chinese and
maybe even the Russians),” he said in an email interview.
The deteriorating ties with the US further decreased Pakistan’s
importance as an ally to Washington after the US Congress debated on whether
Islamabad is a friend or foe and thus, decided to decrease its economic and
military aid given to Pakistan to fight ‘terrorism’.
Public opinion about Pakistan has also had an impact on policy.
According to a Pew poll, only 10 percent of Americans trust Pakistan and only
22 percent of Pakistanis have a favourable view of the United States.
Similarly, Pakistan, now, is facing one of the biggest
challenges ever. Ever since the purported ‘surgical strikes’ on terror camps in
Azad Jammu and Kashmir launched by Indian troops, Indian Prime Minister
Narendra Modi has been threatening to destroy Pakistan. Not only that, New
Delhi has intimidated Islamabad with a water war.
Because of Indian lobbying, two US Congressmen have proposed a
bill to have Pakistan declared a ‘terrorist state’.
“Pakistan is a nuclear state, so the US will make sure not to
put it under sanctions as its necessary for the US to stay connected with
Pakistan to work on nuclear non-proliferation,” said academic Qamar Cheema
while talking to DNA.
“Hard sanctions are not imminent and this is not the first time
that the United States is talking about declaring Pakistan a state sponsor of
terrorism,” said Haqqani.
Similarly columnist and a senior politician Ayaz Amir while
talking to DNA stated that sanctions are too extreme of an option.
Additionally, the tensions between Pakistan and Afghanistan had
earlier caused clashes among the armed forces from both sides suggesting that
the relationship between the two regions is filled with disagreements.
The lack of clearer approach in policy matters as such raises
questions about the government’s competence. Why hasn’t the government been
able to reach a consensus on a strategy regarding counterterrorism?
“Pakistan has continuously been blamed for the US failure to
pacify the situation with Afghanistan. Due to the lack of state policies
Pakistan has always been put in the spotlight,” says Amir.
Kabul has repeatedly blamed Islamabad for all its woes and
snubbing it in every international forum. Not only that, the Afghan government
increased the transit tax on Pakistani goods by 100 per cent, which caused the
transporters to go on a strike, which has created a crisis situation across
borders.
Furthermore, the fact that Pakistan’s power structure is
dominated by military suggests how there is little room for the civilian
leadership to alter the state policy.
“You cannot blame the army for expanding their area, but in
order for civilians to dominate an area of their own they need to get their
priorities right,” said Ayaz.
Pakistan must develop a strategic and effective diplomacy to
deal with the issues. The internal rift between the government and the civilian
authority is the reason for the isolation of the country as it gives freedom to
the non-state actors against whom action must be taken. In addition to
that, Haqqani said, “Pakistan’s neighbours and the international community want
to know why Pakistan is willing to target only some terrorist groups –the ones
that wreak havoc inside Pakistan –but not others, especially those that attack
in Afghanistan and India.”
Despite its success, Operation Zarb e Azb has targeted some
terrorists, but only those that attack the Pakistani state.
“The Afghan Taliban and the Haqqani, that target Afghans and
Americans, and the Lashkar e Taiba and Jaish e Mohammad, that target Indians,
have faced no action,” Haqqani added.
This suggests that Pakistan needs to take action against all
terrorist groups to end the perception about ambiguity in its views on
terrorism.
Furthermore, Civilian leadership cannot afford to make essential
improvements in defining what truly is best for the nation or not.
“Security and foreign policy is not in the civilian leaders’
control. The very fact that the army, which in other countries is part of the
government, is spoken of in Pakistan as a separate and superior institution to
the government in Pakistan tells us everything,” said Haqqani.
Lastly, the need for leadership in Pakistan to set their
priorities right is very important. Not only that, the need for a realist
foreign policy should not be overlooked. The idea of a civilian control should
only be considered if the leadership understands what needs to be focused on.
We have to battle for our security, however, we ought not to
make India the end all and be the greater part of our presence.
No comments:
Post a Comment