“Do you hear the tumult of death afar, The call midst the fire-floods and poisonous clouds? The Captain’s call to the steersman to turn the ship to an unnamed shore, For that time is over — the stagnant time in the port — Where the same old merchandise is bought and sold in an endless round, Where dead things drift in the exhaustion and emptiness of truth.” — Rabindranath Tagore Through an agonisingly long stretch now, one has had a foreboding that we are adrift the pain of times knowing little by way of where we are headed, and how we’ll get there. Precariously perched on the flimsiest of straws, we are numbed by the enormity of the ensuing challenge and our failings and incapacities in dealing with the trials and tribulations that loom ahead. But, that does not stop us from indulging in an incessant and boastful rendition of our strengths and our ability to surf through the growing pile of troubles. The crescendo of jingoism and hate that we seem to be systematically building around us is a reflection not of our strength or our sense of honour, but our inherent weaknesses and fault lines. By driving out the prospect of pragmatism, we are guilty of further accentuating our emotional embrace of a spate of crises which could be dealt with successfully only in the realm of unmitigated logic and reason. We appear to be a few million miles away from that prospect, drifting further away. Relations between two sovereign states are always built on a convergence of their respective strategic and allied interests and the common spectrum that they are able to build together. In the absence of shared interests, a relationship, if construed at all, would stand on a wobbly platform that would crumble when confronted with adversity. For example, Pakistan has not even been able to address the basic question of ‘your war’ or ‘our war’ over decades. It is conveniently dubbed as ‘our war’ in the spirit of good-times camaraderie with the US, but it is rubbished as ‘your war’ when the ride gets rough. What is this war anyway? Simply put, it is a war against terror and those outfits that indoctrinate its germs, nurture and sponsor it, use it as an instrument and perpetrate it to the detriment of existent states and people. The key question that arises is whether one can afford to be selective about fighting this war which poses a challenge to the entire humanity? Consequently, why is it that we are engaged in tossing this around as ‘your war’ and ‘our war’? Understandably, the ownership of this deadly war is being conveniently determined on the basis of how best it serves one’s strategic interests. The consequent choice of whom to fight, whom to leave alone or befriend would depend on that paradigm. It is a reflection of the old dictum of one country’s freedom fighters being another’s terrorists, or yesterday’s freedom fighters becoming today’s terrorists. Yet another spectrum of choice that is laid out is which of these groups any country should align with in furtherance of its objectives, and which it should fight to deny the same advantage to another country. Adrift the cumulative pain of times that it has nurtured over decades, Pakistan cannot afford to repeat policy blunders which have plonked it into heaps of problems already. The immediate and urgent need is to shun the zero-sum syndrome and bring in substantive doses of rationality into its policy formulation and implementation mechanisms In the process, a war that should be every country’s responsibility to fight in their individual capacity as well as in collaboration and coordination with other countries of the world has been reduced to becoming an instrument for advancing conflicting interests. In Pakistan’s case, the choice assumes existential perspective. Having pursued a flawed policy in the region, it stands virtually alone. Its expanding relations with China provide the only whiff of air. As any student of international politics would know, this is playing it dangerously. After all, what is the guarantee that Pakistan’s relations with China would always be ascendant and would never suffer from a variance of perceptions? Additionally, what are the safeguards that would stop the existent bilateral disequilibrium in relations with China not working to the long-term detriment of Pakistan? Obviously, by advocating a policy of issuing threats to the US that it is no longer an ally, or boasting of China as the option that it has in the basket, Pakistan is only perpetuating an existent policy crisis which is mostly of its own making. It has failed to inject the medicine of pragmatism and the need for multilateral engagement in the context of its relations with its friends and foes alike. The zero-sum syndrome continues to be its policy nightmare. Then its penchant to shake hands across distances has been at the cost of the rationale for relations with its neighbours and countries of the immediate region. It would be appropriate to say that Pakistan is reaping the harvest of what it sowed through the years of its existence. Is there a change in the offing? Do our policy-makers know, or even make an effort to know, that furthering the same mindset is not the solution to the ailments that Pakistan suffers from? By the look of things unfurling in quick succession, it appears that no change is in sight. Tweets that deserve to be ignored should not be legitimised by tweets in response. That only hastens the breaking point. Pakistan needs to come to terms with the absolute requirement of fighting all hues and shades of terror irrespective of their short- or long-term utility. We are now the bull’s-eye under the international scanner and every move is being watched. The incremental approach that we have been advocating, may be rightly, has taken far too long in maturing, thus causing exhaustion and despair and leading others to believe that this is only a clever mechanism to procrastinate. Pakistan made the cardinal blunder of espousing the jihad narrative which has continued to unravel to its enhancing disadvantage. But, one bad policy cannot be undone by another similar one. Pakistan needs good policies which are rooted in pragmatism rather than in further raising the levels of crass sentimentalism and showcasing the assets that it may or may not have. Continued engagement across certain divergences will ultimately create opportunities for strengthening understanding and building cooperation. Adrift the cumulative pain of times that it has nurtured over decades, Pakistan cannot afford to repeat policy blunders which have plonked it into heaps of problems already. The immediate and urgent need is to shun the zero-sum syndrome and bring in substantive doses of rationality into its policy formulation and implementation mechanisms. We can’t only have unadulterated friends around us, and we should try not to ignore the commonalities that we can build with countries we may also have divergences with. Divorcing a relationship spread over almost seven decades is not a credible option which would also set a bad precedence. Building a sustainable edifice on it is the way forward. The writer is a political and security strategist, and heads the Regional Peace Institute — an Islamabad-based think tank. Email: raoofhasan@hotmail.com. Twitter: @RaoofHasan Published in Daily Times, January 9th 2018.