Daily Times

Prime Minister’s Adviser on Foreign Affairs Sartaj Aziz recently claimed in an address to the National Assembly that a certain former Pakistani envoy to the United States was lobbying against Pakistan’s interests within Washington’s diplomatic and political circles by creating hurdles for the ministry of foreign affairs’ diplomatic approaches.

Aziz’s remarks were clearly aimed towards Husain Haqqani who served as Pakistan’s ambassador to the United States during the previous government’s tenure. Haqqani responded with a rejoinder to these allegations saying that he was not a lobbyist but a scholar. He added that Pakistan’s failed foreign policies were solely responsible for the downward spiral in the relations between Pakistan and the United States. It was further added in the rejoinder that it was not Haqqani who created the AQ Khan network, supported the Taliban as they killed US soldiers in Afghanistan or allowed UN designated terrorist groups to function openly.

While Haqqani may have some influence in Washington in the context of his rapport with the US State Department and Capitol Hill as Pakistan’s [earlier] serving and then former ambassador, and later as a scholar and a director of a think tank, his response to Aziz’s statement is not to be ignored. While it may not find many takers in Pakistan, there is truth to what Haqqani has said. A former diplomat notwithstanding his stature or his rapport with key government dignitaries is not in a position to influence that state’s political or diplomatic positions. Aziz’s attack on Haqqani is not merely an effort to distract attention from Pakistan government’s failure to improve its credibility in Washington but is also a classic case of finding a scapegoat to camouflage certain diplomatic flaws. Moreover, if it is to be believed that Haqqani has so much influence over US policy, Pakistan should embrace and not ostracise him. The influence, if there is any, is of his ideas not his person, and there is a moral here for all who have influence in outlining Pakistan’s foreign policy.

Furthermore, it is imperative to understand the damage Pakistan does to its own reputation as well as that of those have worked for Pakistan in some capacity when it indulges in a churlish blame-game. After the debacle of the unproven “memo-gate,” Haqqani after becoming “persona non grata” left Pakistan, thus proving that in Pakistan it is not important to substantiate a charge through a legal process. It goes without saying that notwithstanding the ideology or point of view a person espouses, there is no justification that anyone is accused or labelled unless there are specific charges, in which case there should be a proper trial, and not a witch-hunt.

Within the context of the status quo of Pakistan’s equation with the US, there is need for a great deal of introspection on Pakistan’s part. And that is equally pertinent to Pakistan’s relations with countries in its neighbourhood, and even China. There is a clear lack of farsightedness in Pakistan’s foreign policies, the first point in which context is that a country like Pakistan that is in need of a major rebranding of image and overhauling of diplomatic relationships does not have a full-time foreign minister. Instead of remaining fixated on its geostrategic position and geographical reality, and instead of pouring unlimited resources in its security paradigm, it is about time Pakistan evaluated itself for what it is. In its growing isolation as a regional and international player, Pakistan must take a long, hard and honest look at the dynamics of its policies that seem to be stuck in a past that is shadowed by a long history of war with India, conflict in Afghanistan, and acting as an ally of the US in its war against the former USSR, and later in its war on terror.

Pakistan should work on building a relationship with Afghanistan that is based on principles of peace and rehabilitation, instead of continuing efforts to become a hegemonic entity and extending tacit support to groups that wreak havoc in Afghanistan.

The policy regarding India should be based on the initiation of a substantive dialogue that would focus on resolving of all long-standing issues. And without getting into a game of whataboutery, Pakistan should focus on targeting all India-centric terror groups on its soil. Targeting of militants that are involved in acts of terrorism in India and other countries would not only be a validation of Pakistan’s commitment to elimination of terrorism but also a testimony to its acceptance that there is no compartmentalisation of “good” or bad” when it comes to terrorists who target innocent people.

And Pakistan’s relationship with the US should be that of trust and respect, in full acceptance of the other’s status, and role in the region. And for once, that role should not be that of a proxy or a direct fighter to engage in a war in another country.

It is about time Pakistan came to terms with its size and resources and kept its expectations and ambitions commensurate to that. Pakistan should ensure its national security — already done with nuclear weapons — and now the short and long-term focus should be on economic development and building of resources. Pakistan owes it to itself that its primary focus is on the betterment of the lives of its people through development, and not merely developing its military superiority.