Struggling to Revamp Frayed Relations
Less than a month later than Al-Qaeda terror network's mastermind in Pakistan, several high ranking US officials have paid trips to Islamabad to restore trust and cooperation between the two countries in fight against extremism. The United States Foreign Secretary, Hillary Clinton, arrived in Islamabad on Friday May 27, 2011 to meet Pakistani officials on the recent developments.
Acknowledging Pakistan's sacrifices she said that both the countries needed to "redouble efforts" to counter extremism and terrorism. Terming the "Al-Qaida syndicate" still a threat after the killing of its leader Osama bin Laden, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said: "The United States and Pakistan have worked together to kill and capture many terrorists on the Pakistani soil." She said it could not have been possible without the close cooperation between the two governments.
Secretary Clinton said that relations between the United States and Pakistan had reached a turning point after the killing of Osama bin Laden and Islamabad must make "decisive steps" in the days ahead to fight terrorism. Clinton was joined by Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, to deliver a twofold message. The United States wants to soothe nerves and hurt feelings following the raid nearly a month ago by U.S. Navy SEALs on bin Laden's compound, a strike that was kept secret even from Pakistan's top Army and intelligence officials. But Clinton and Mullen also were telling Pakistan it must show renewed commitment to U.S. security interests, chiefly to eradicate safe havens for militants who attack U.S. forces in Afghanistan.
The US foreign policy administration immediately began revamping relations with Pakistan after Osama's murder in Abbattoabad brought about harsh criticism against the Pakistani government for failing to aptly fight terrorism or even having links with the notorious network. In the early days after the blowing news of Osama hunt by US forces near the Pakistani capital, analysts said the US-Pakistani strategic partnership was on the verge of a crucial change. Pakistani presidents' trip to Moscow and China was, by some experts, interpreted as a possible U-turn in US-Pakistan fragile relations.
On the other hand, US congressmen asked Obama administration to rethink the country's relations with Pakistan. However, Pakistan's strategic significance for the US-led war against terrorism remains unquestionable. No need to say, the war on terror is far from over unless militancy is uprooted in the region. For getting the job done, the international community needs to get Pakistan's role in the process reinforced. The US administration has frequently reiterated that, despite tense relations with Pakistan, the US will not risk any damage in bilateral ties with it. In spite of edgy relations between the two allies, both sides agree that they need to considerately carry on cooperation to bring an end to the scourge of terrorism.
Fighting against terrorism has served as axis for cooperation between the two states and this very factor asks both parties to actively work on the long exhausting mission. However, responsibilities need to be based on transparent mechanisms to avoid further blunders such as those committed during the last decade.
Afghanistan’s Foreign Policy Challenges
Afghanistan's foreign policy and diplomatic machinery shoulder the critical responsibility of defining and shaping the country's short-term and long-term relations with the outside world.
This has assumed greater significance for our country given the extensive involvement of the international community in Afghanistan in military, political, economic and social spheres. Moreover, the country continues to remain heavily dependent on western countries and international organizations for a variety of reasons from security provision to paying for the government's daily expenses. However, this dependence cannot be an excuse and a reason for having a foreign policy and diplomatic machinery that lacks the ability to initiate and independently pursue its own goals.
Afghanistan's foreign policy and the bureaucratic machinery that is in charge of crafting and executing its foreign policies have rather been inflexible, passive and inconsistent in recent years. This means that the country's foreign policy makers and our diplomatic machinery have most of the times been only reacting to events and foreign policy compulsions rather than initiating and taking the lead in affecting the events before the events affect Afghanistan. For example, the countries in the region have serious concerns about the presence of foreign military forces inside Afghanistan. Moreover, they see it as a grave threat to themselves; the presence of a government in Afghanistan that is heavily dependent on the west and, in their view, will act as the west's regional agent and strategic protégé. Such fears and apprehensions have naturally led to a wall of distrust towards Afghanistan being erected by them.
Much of the country's ills over the past one decade can be, in one way or another, traced to this lack of mutual trust. Needless to say that it has been the responsibility of the country's foreign policy makers and our diplomatic apparatus to have duly addressed these genuine concerns of our neighbors over the past years. What we see instead is that they have largely failed to achieve this imperative over the past many years. Time and again, it has been the inability, inconsistency and a passive approach to foreign relations that have crippled Afghanistan's foreign diplomacy machinery. In order to quell the Taliban insurgency and make Afghanistan a viable state in the region, the role played by the country's foreign policy and diplomatic apparatus is as important as the international coalition's relentless battle against the Taliban and their allies. These two are more or less the two sides of the same coin.
Afghans hope that the government of Afghanistan can make up for the past shortcomings and re-energize its foreign policy apparatus so that Afghanistan's foreign policy can be realistic, balanced and more important, able to make use of available opportunities in a pro-active manner.
The Old Course, the Old Tricks
It is becoming more evident that neither diplomatic approaches nor any military warnings can put off intentions of the Islamic Republic of Iran to complete the controversial Uranium enrichment process. Iran has consistently denied allegations that it seeks to develop a bomb. Yet many in the international community remain skeptical. Despite a U.S. intelligence finding in November 2007 that concluded Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003, the Bush administration warned that Iran sought to weaponize its nuclear program, concerns the Obama administration shares. Nonproliferation experts note Iran's ability to produce enriched uranium continues to progress but disagree on how close Iran is to mastering capabilities to weaponize.
In its most recent report on Iran nuclear program, the international nuclear watchdog says it has unspecified evidence Iran worked on technology designed to set off a nuclear weapon. The New York Times reported the revelation came in a report by the International Atomic Energy Agency released Tuesday. The Times quoted the report as saying the organization has evidence Iran conducted work on sophisticated nuclear triggering technology, but did not say where the evidence came from or provide many details.
However, as a usual response to such reports, Iran's nuclear chief has dismissed the report, calling it a "fabrication." Tehran has been slapped with a series of UN Security Council resolutions demanding a halt to its uranium enrichment, none of which has produced any palpable changes in Iranian officials' decisions. The UN Security Council hit Tehran with a fourth set of sanctions on June 9 last year over its nuclear program, and the United States and European Union followed up with tougher punitive measures targeting Iran's banking and energy sectors.
In addition to ongoing tensions between the United States and the Islamic Republic, hopes for diplomatic talks glimmered as Iranian President Mehmoud Ahmadinejad took the office for a second term as president. The country is severely persisting against the international calls for halting its nuclear enrichment program. Staying unwavering, Iran has said it will never give up its right to enrich Uranium. But it had announced previously that it could suspend higher-level work for several years if a long-delayed fuel swap can be agreed with foreign powers.
Iran has held no substantive talks with world powers since it struck a fuel swap deal with Russia, France and the United States in October. The diplomatic talks seemed to have reached a deadlock. There are, however, calls for peaceful approaches to the subject despite the rigidity demonstrated by both parties. Indications suggest that, having demonstrated no alterations in mindsets, the negotiation parties will reiterate their previous positions. Negotiation annals say that the western party attends meetings to encourage Iran to halt the enrichment process and, on the contrary, Iran has repetitively marked the enrichment program as non-negotiable. So, the process will keep going controversial and up in the air unless the two sides are dealing on some considerable concessions, a requisite denied by both parties so far.
0 comments:
Post a Comment