Daily Times

In the South Asia region,when the context is Pakistan and India, the US seems to have three main priorities: first, establishing bilateral politico-economic ties with individual countries, second, preventing nuclear proliferation and, third, combating terrorism.

The establishment of bilateral ties of the US with individual countries in the spheres of politics (or diplomacy) and economics is different for different countries. For instance, the US wants Indian investors to invest in its economy and vice versa. Furthermore, the US also wants India to buy nuclear fuel and technology (for energy generation purposes) from it. The core objective of the US is to earn money (or fetch its share from the Indian economy). Certainly, since 9/11, various wars have sapped the economic strength of the US.

Improving the US’s bilateral relations with emerging economies is not a new thing. The US under President Obama has also improved its relations with China as well. For instance, at the occasion of the sixth annual Strategic and Economic Dialogue, which took place in Beijing in July 2014, US Secretary of State John Kerry said in his opening remarks that the US had no intention of containing China while Chinese President Xi Jinping said that a “confrontation between the two countries would be a disaster”. In this way, both countries showed their resolve to improve their bilateral relationship. Certainly, the Chinese economy is expanding and standing at the number second position globally, just one notch below that of the US. In today’s world, economics precedes politics. Economics has brought the US to the doors of India to pen certain financial agreements of far reaching implications.

It is the buying capacity of Pakistan where it is discredited. Pakistani businessmen (mostly) do not have the economic capacity to invest in the US on a reciprocal basis and Pakistan, as a country that is already under heavy debt ($ 65 billion in September 2014) and is dependent on the US’s goodwill internationally for its financial viability, cannot buy nuclear fuel and technology from the US.

Both issues of preventing nuclear proliferation and combatting terrorism fall under the head of regional security, which in turn is a part of global security. To India, the US offered certain concessions in three steps. In the first step, in November 2006, the then president, George W Bush, got the US Atomic Energy (USAE) Act 1954 (meant for discouraging the export of nuclear technology to other countries) amended through a new act called the Hyde Act of 2006, which exempted India from signing the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) as a pre-requisite. In the second step, in August 2008, the US secured a waiver from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in India’s favour (India-specific safeguards agreement) by assuring the IAEA that India would follow IAEA guidelines. In the third step, in September 2008, the US not only obtained a waiver from the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) to supply nuclear technology to India only but also facilitated the NSG to provide a waiver to India to import nuclear technology from any other country of the world. In October 2008, the US and India entered into the famous 123 Agreement of civilian nuclear trade. The US can now sell nuclear fuel and technology to India, which would separate its civilian and military nuclear programmes, though India would open its civilian nuclear facilities to international inspection.

Immediately after this development, India and France entered into a similar nuclear pact. In this way, India has become the only country that has not signed the NPT but can carry out nuclear commerce with the rest of the world. Furthermore, in this way, it is expected that India will obtain an additional 25,000 MW of nuclear power by the year 2020 to make the total national nuclear power generation as much as 45,000 MW. The consequent quantitative boost to India’s industrial (manufacturing) sector is still incalculable. Similarly, the resultant qualitative improvement to the lives of domestic consumers is multitudinous. Contrarily, despite Pakistan’s growing energy needs and industrial (manufacturing) suppression, it has not been offered any such waivers or agreements. Pakistan has been rebuffed under the pretext that it was involved in nuclear proliferation (reference to the alleged activities of the Dr A Q Khan network). It is obvious that from the list of nuclear beneficiaries, India has been chosen while Pakistan has been rejected.

To combat terrorism, Pakistan has been asked to ban Jamaat-ut-Dawa (JuD), the Haqqani network and 10 other organisations associated with militancy. Pakistan has also frozen all accounts and assets of the JuD and has imposed a restriction on the movements of its leader, Hafiz Muhammad Saeed. The JuD is banned because it is considered an umbrella organization, one branch of which is Lashkar-e-Tayyaba (LeT), a militant group alleged to have carried out the Mumbai attacks in November 2008. Since then, the composite dialogue between Pakistan and India has been stalled and there is no sign of its revival, as India and the US demand the handing over of the attack’s planners, such as Zakiur Rehman Lakhvi, to India to which Pakistan is found dillydallying. The LeT is also considered to have been involved in attacks against Indian missions in Afghanistan and in bolstering al Qaeda in the tribal belt of Pakistan. Under the UN Security Council Resolution 1267, the JuD and LeT were banned by the UN sanctions committee in December 2008. However, Pakistan did not freeze the accounts and assets of the JuD, which took place finally when John Kerry emphasised this during his recent visit (January 12-13, 2015) to Pakistan. The US thinks that these steps by Pakistan may appease India to at least calm its guns at the working boundary with Pakistan.

Generally speaking, it seems that Pakistan stands isolated in both the region and the world. It is also apparent that both regional and international players are asking Pakistan to undertake certain steps domestically to break the web of isolation. The earlier Pakistan reviews its policies, the better.

The writer is a freelance columnist and can be reached at qaisarrashid@yahoo.com