Home »Editorials » Trump’s likely stance on Pakistan

From what Reuters news story reported this week, the Trump administration is ready to harden its approach towards Pakistan to "crackdown" on militants allegedly launching attacks in Afghanistan from Pakistani territory. This triggered panic selling in the stock market on Tuesday, with the benchmark KSE-100 index plunging by 1,678.89 points and closing below the psychological 45,000-level at 44,914.45 points. As a result, daily trading volumes increased to 294.973 million shares, from the 170.261 million shares traded a day earlier. Market capitalization decreased by Rs294 billion to Rs9.2 trillion. More alarming from investors' perspective was the fact that out of a total 386 active shares, as many as 343 closed in the negative, and only 25 in the positive.

Was the Reuters news item really characterised by features legitimate enough to trigger panic in Pakistan's stock market, which is considered one of the best-performing bourses in the world? The answer could be both yes and no. The yes answer is premised on the report that potential Trump administration responses being discussed include expansion of US drone strikes, redirecting or withholding some aid to Pakistan and perhaps eventually downgrading its status as a major non-Nato ally.

But the negative answer looks to be more plausible since senior US officials are sceptical of prospects of any harsh actions succeeding against Pakistan. They argue that years of efforts to force a change in Pakistan's policies have failed in the past, "and that already strengthening US ties with India undermine chances of a breakthrough with Islamabad." They also argue that Washington seeks greater cooperation with Pakistan, "not a rupture in ties, once the administration completes a regional review of the strategy guiding the 16-year-old war in Afghanistan." Moreover, Pentagon spokesman Adam Stump points out that "the United States and Pakistan continue to partner on a range of national security issues."

The Trump administration must not lose sight of the toll militancy has taken on Pakistan. Since 2003, almost 27,000 civilians and nearly 7,000 security forces personnel have been killed as a result of terrorism and extremism. The White House also must not ignore the fact that under the stewardship of right-winger Narendra Modi, India is trying its best to harm Pakistan's ties with Afghanistan through a variety of tools available to New Delhi. These include conceiving, planning and carrying out through proxies terrorist activities in various parts of Pakistan. The arrest of Kulbhushan Jadhav who is under a death sentence in Pakistan for spying and terror activities is a case in point. These tools also include New Delhi's capacity to make available funds to a beleaguered Afghan government in order to extract maximum benefits from the rulers in Kabul whose legitimacy has been eroded by the Afghan Taliban in recent weeks and months. It is a reality that Pakistan's policies towards Afghanistan are also driven in part by fears that India, which was the principal actor behind the break-up of Pakistan in 1971, will gain more influence.

Hawkish elements in different US administrations have often cited statistics of the funds that Washington has given to Islamabad in assistance since 2002, amounting to $33 billion, including more than $14 billion in the so-called Coalition Support Fund (CSF). However, they gloss over the fact that Pakistan has suffered losses of hundreds of billions of dollars. Even the Coalition Support Fund has failed to ensure just and fair reimbursement to Pakistan against the costs it incurred in its support to counter-insurgency operations.

The US has been gradually losing its influence in the Middle East and South Asia. In the Middle East Russia is reclaiming its position in a region where the Soviet Union was a top actor during the Cold War. China in the meantime has expanded its soft-power image through its historic One Belt One Road project, with the China Pakistan Economic Corridor as its flagship in South Asia. These could constitute grim realities from the US perspective. Washington is therefore required to rearticulate its approach towards Pakistan. This could be done through acknowledgement of the centrality and criticality of Pakistan insofar as the political and economic imperatives of this region are concerned.



the author

Top
Close
Close