Daily Times

In matters of state, where the heart overpowers the mind, rationality is the first casualty. The deliberations by the parliamentary committee and the subsequent debate by parliament on the critical issue of whether NATO supply routes should be reopened were more rhetorical and emotional, but the final document approved by a consensus indicates that sanity eventually prevailed. Parliament passed a resolution that laid down over a dozen conditions that are to be met before the ban is lifted. And the contentious ones being: a formal apology for the unprovoked Salala attack and actions against those held accountable; an immediate end to drone attacks on Pakistani soil; zero tolerance for any air or ground violation by ISAF/NATO forces; and instead of handouts, prompt payment at international rates for the use of the country’s infrastructure. The document has provided a platform from where Pakistan can negotiate fresh terms of engagement in the ongoing Operation Enduring Freedom where its self-respect and dignity is not compromised. With some minor give and take, the chances of a resolution of the crisis to the satisfaction of both sides appear bright.

Right wing parties, including those who had boycotted the last elections and have zero representation in the current assemblies, are crying foul and accuse the legislators of acquiescing to the US/Western/Jewish lobby. Led by the JUI, Jamaat-i-Islami (JI) and Tehrik-e-Insaaf in tow, their emotionally laden charges of a sellout to the ‘infidels’ appeal to the religious sentiments of the public. They demand that the ban imposed on NATO supply routes must continue indefinitely and their stand on the subject is non-negotiable — period.

While interacting with a group of young and upwardly mobile professionals, I enquired about their opinion on the subject and whether Pakistan could consider reopening of the routes if its key demands are met. The majority view was in the negative, regardless of any concessions that the US might offer. It was based on the following: first, violation of Pakistan’s sovereignty by the drone attacks in our tribal belts despite our vehement and repeated protests; second, our so-called friendship and alliance with the ISAF/NATO forces in Afghanistan has cost the nation dearly and it is time this tenuous relationship should be terminated, and finally, Pakistan must strive to remain neutral in the current conflict in neighbouring Afghanistan and allowing passage of NATO logistics through its territory would compromise its neutral stance.

On the surface, the group had presented very strong and cogent arguments to support their viewpoint. Unfortunately, these did not factor in the other perspective, without which a decision that best serves the interest of the beleaguered nation would be difficult to arrive at. Acting as the ‘Devil’s advocate’, I countered with the following argument: the Americans are desperate to end or drastically reduce their combat footprint in Afghanistan but cannot afford the pullout being viewed as an abject surrender and a defeat of their military juggernaut by a ragtag force of non-state actors. They are looking for a way out where they can claim that having realised their principal political objectives of defeating the al Qaeda network in Afghanistan and eliminating its top leadership, they have achieved their goals and are withdrawing honourably. For this strategy to have any degree of credibility, they are trying to ensure that following the departure of their combat troops, the current Afghan government is strengthened enough to survive the inevitable Taliban onslaught for at least a year or two. The task is difficult and costly as it is, and without the reopening of the Pakistani supply routes, it would become prohibitively expensive. Pakistan’s continued policy to deny access to the supplies through its territory will be viewed by the US administration and Congress as a hostile act that would immediately change its status from an ally to an adversary. The government and the people of Pakistan should then be ready to face the consequences of a US backlash.

To begin with, the US has a UN mandate on their military operations in Afghanistan. For as long as they perceive and can convince the international community that Pakistani territories are being used to provide sanctuaries to the Afghan Taliban factions and the Pakistan government is either unable or unwilling to eliminate the sanctuaries, the CIA drone attacks might not be seen as a violation of Pakistan’s sovereignty, and in the worst case scenario, the country could be labelled as a supporter of terror groups. UN-approved international sanctions could then be imposed, bringing its already teetering economy to virtual collapse.

Besides the insurgency in FATA and the rapidly deteriorating law and order situation in the rest of the country, Pakistan is facing an armed rebellion in its Balochistan province, where rebel groups are literally waging a war of independence from the federation. Pakistan suspects that they are being financially and militarily supported by India and perhaps even the CIA. Anti-Pakistan sentiment is rife in the US and recently, Congressman Dana Rohrabacher, who chairs the US House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations introduced a resolution in the House of Representatives calling upon Pakistan to recognise the Baloch right to self-determination. The US State Department meanwhile strongly condemned the resolution, calling it “highly irresponsible and a blatant interference in the domestic issue of the country”. If Pakistan’s status changes from ally to adversary, the US administration is unlikely to take such a charitable view and might decide to overtly support the Baloch insurgency, thus making the task of keeping the federation from splintering even more challenging.

Textile exports to the US and Europe is the largest contributor to Pakistan’s total export earnings and much of it is dependent on the quotas that Europe and the US have given the country. The US administration is already under pressure from their textile sector to eliminate the Pakistani quota but to prevent the Pakistani economy from further deterioration, it has resisted the demand so far. Once Pakistan no more remains a friend, the textile quota will come under review and is likely to be cancelled. The US would also use its clout to persuade Europe to follow suit. The impact of such a move would lead to unemployment on a massive scale, leading to severe internal riots that might be beyond the control of the government to handle.

The Indus Water Treaty that Pakistan had signed with India in the early 1960s gives Pakistan the full rights to the waters of the three northern rivers that emanate from the Himalayas and enter Pakistani territory via India, while it permits India to build hydropower projects on these rivers within their territory as long as the entire amount of water is allowed to enter Pakistan. The World Bank (WB) has been made the guarantor of the Treaty and any dispute regarding its violation can be referred to it for arbitration, whose decision would be final. Pakistan has taken up a number of complaints about the Indian violations of the Treaty to the WB; a few went in its favour while in some the Indian viewpoint was upheld. At present, some key Indian hydro projects on the three rivers are under severe dispute. Since the US exercises control over the workings of the WB, if Pakistan is viewed as an enemy by the former, the chances of getting a fair deal from the WB will diminish. Is the nation ready to face such a consequence for its refusal to reopen the routes?

(To be continued)

The writer is a defence analyst and Director of Centre of Airpower Studies. He can be reached at jamal4701@yahoo.co.uk