Pakistan is another party to the conflict. Peace and stability in Afghanistan cannot be restored without the diplomatic and political support of Pakistan. Its border with Afghanistan is well defined on the map but not on the ground. People in the tribal areas on both sides of the border have enjoyed the liberty to move freely across the border for generations. Successive governments in Pakistan tried hard to enforce restrictions on the movement of people along the border but failed. That gave the Taliban the opportunity to hit targets inside both Pakistan and Afghanistan and hide in the tribal areas. President Asif Zardari attended the NATO summit but he was ignored, if not humiliated by President Obama. No meeting took place between the two presidents. Pakistan had blocked the much needed supply route for NATO troops and the officials from both sides worked hard to reopen the route. There was an expectation that a meeting, however short, between the heads of two states would endorse the draft agreed by their officials. However, this has not happened due to obstinacy and arrogance from the US’s side. In his opening remarks, President Obama thanked the Central Asian countries for allowing NATO supplies to pass through their territory into Afghanistan knowing well that this route is neither sustainable nor cost effective. In the event of withdrawal of heavy military equipment, a route through Pakistan will become essential.The United States has now added salt to the wounds by proposing to suspend $ 33 million military aid to Pakistan. This is in response to sentencing Shakil Afridi, a physician, for assisting the CIA to track down the fugitive Osama bin Laden. The imprisonment of Shakil Afridi cannot be a bilateral issue. Should the US administration feel sympathetic to the detention of the doctor, it could have addressed it through a quiet diplomatic channel. By proposing to suspend the military aid in public, the issue has become an embarrassment to both sides. Pakistan cannot reduce the sentence or release the physician, as people would blame the government for yielding to outside pressure. On the other hand, a refusal to grant amnesty would upset the US administration. The US Secretary of State appeared before the press and expressed her concern on the conditions in which the physician had been held. One would wonder why the Secretary of State did not bother to protest when hundreds of political prisoners were detained and tortured in prison cells in Egypt during the rule of Hosni Mubarak. The trial of the physician and awarding of 33 years imprisonment raised a question whether the law was allowed to take its own course. In any assessment, the court’s verdict appeared harsh but there is a higher judicial forum available to seek justice. By denouncing the court’s verdict publicly and proposing to suspend military aid, the US administration signalled that it wanted to embarrass the Pakistan government, and that it did not want the release of Shakil Afridi.Pakistan has spent 60 percent of its lifetime under military rule. Institutions were manipulated to serve the elite, public welfare was relegated to the charity of the wealthy, and resources were diverted to benefit businessmen and industrialists. The judiciary at its highest level invented the ‘doctrine of necessity’ to provide legal cover to the unconstitutional actions of the dictators. Successive military dictators took advantage of it. The democratisation of institutions, realignment of economic policy, freedom of the press, independence of the judiciary and rule of law are the issues that deserve support in order to restore Pakistan to its democratic foundations. The United States, European countries and the world at large would benefit from the resurgence of a democratic Pakistan. Humiliating its elected leaders and raising issues to embarrass the government would play in the hands of those who are eager to see Pakistan a backyard of fundamentalists. If Pakistan is pushed to the wall, the moderates will be marginalized, paving the way for the non-secular and undemocratic forces to emerge. In this process, it will not be impossible for the Pakistani Taliban to gain control of the state, which will pose a much bigger problem for the world. The Taliban in Afghanistan surfaced in the political vacuum resulting from internal fighting and a lack of good governance. The United States and the secular west should not lose sight of this tragic development next door while dealing with Pakistan.NATO was created in 1949 as a collective defence alliance to confront the external threat specifically from the socialist world. Its first Secretary General Lord Ismay summarised the objectives of the alliance as to keep the Russians out, the Americans in and the Germans down. During the past 60 years though the premises on which the alliance was formed have changed but the fundamentals remained the same; only the actors have been replaced. Now the objectives of NATO seem to keep the Taliban out, Afghanistan in and Pakistan down. (Concluded) The writer is a former international civil servant, a former UN official and a freelance columnist. Based currently in the US, he can be reached at rahman.chowdhury@yahoo.com