The Strategic Dialogue

Ambassador’s Diary
The most important event in this period is going to be the Pak US Strategic Dialogue in Washington for which our most learned and erudite Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gillani is going to Washington to lead the Pakistan delegation of civil and military celebrities. It remains to be seen who going to be Pakistan Prime Minister’s dialogue partner. The Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi is in Washington , the COAS General Kiyani and ISI Chief would also be in US . The National High Command will be in US in those days. I am not commenting on the direction this dialogue should not take and not on the specific event. Many an event in diplomacy look innocuous on the face value but one should guard against wishful thinking. Dialogue is different from going into a mutual security pact like relationship. The dialogue should stay just a dialogue and not lead to a security pact.

FM Qureshi repeating official jargon has said that he would propose “ Ten Tracks” for sectorial engagement which are “ economy, energy, education, defence, science and technology, strategic stability and non-proliferation, counter terrorism , agriculture, health, and communication and public diplomacy” – that is nothing left, all cards on the table. This indicates where Pak relations will be open to US to discuss,. what is the US- Pak strategic dialogue. Never before there has been the depth of such dialogues. Even in the CENTO the relation ship did not touch intimacy.

All I know is that US which had considered Pakistan a third rate country, a fourth rate leadership, a fifth rate nation has suddenly thought of having “ Strategic Dialogue.” I do not know if the word partnership in this strategic dialogue figures but does it matter? I would only put forward two observations: Demand $ 100 billion as damages, for the loss incurred by us in the War on Terror plus the damage to the property of Pak citizens in the military operations and drone attacks, plus damage to our economy. Please use the word Damages for the amount demanded by you, Not Aid . Pakistan is not for mortgage, if it adds more burden of more. Therefore what we should demand is amount for damages we suffered in the war on terror.

Ad nausea , our authorities demand US to provide Marshal Plan Aid for Pakistan. I think it may be clarified that Marshall was Secretary of State after the WW II under whom the Aid Package for reconstruction of war devastated Europe was made. The amount of Marshal Aid to Europe was only – if I recollect it correctly- $ 2 billion . To call for Marshal Aid for Pakistan is misleading. One can say like there was a Marshal Plan Aid for war devastated Europe, Pakistan should be given aid for reconstruction of its devastated areas of War on Terror and damage to economy. Otherwise one is asking $ 2 billion aid only and not damages.. One should not enunciate positions ambiguously.

They are asking for strategic dialogue because US has seen that our Armed Forces and soldiers are the best in the region. In fact they were better than the American and NATO forces in every aspect, bravery, skill, performance in this war on terror. Foreign forces had more weapons of “mass destruction” backed by money than ours otherwise ours are much better than theirs . In fact Pakistan’s problem is the presence of foreign troops in Afghanistan. The sooner they leave Afghanistan the better for Pakistan, for the region, for the world . Their leaving the occupation of Afghanistan will bringing end to the war . Let us ask them to please leave Afghanistan. Surely the crux of the strategic dialogue is to bind Pakistan more in this war. We should not become mercenaries for the imperialist West. It is important to note that with US it is only strategic dialogue, with India it was strategic partnership between them and US.

One would like to caution about what structural shape this dialogue might take and for what duration. It must not take the shape of another military alliance. The word strategic dialogue should not mean a military arrangement, not a revival of US-Pak security agreement in another form, under another wording bit become in reality a US Pak Mutual Security Pact of 1953/54. Nomenclature is changed but substance remains the same. No to that play of words.

In the keenness of our present rulers to please US we have ignored even certain limitations imposed traditionally in nominating ambassadors to foreign countries. For example, no person having dual nationality, with one nationality being of the country where he is to be ambassador , is appointed ambassador to that country, or if he has his wealth in the foreign country where he is being nominated ambassador. Here Pakistan Government has appointed Hussain Haqqani as Pak Ambassador to Washington while he and his wife have huge wealth in USA. He may be a very suitable person for serving the regime as an ambassador but with his family fortunes being in USA he is ineligible to be an ambassador to USA. Also he is working as a Professor in Boston University in international relations department. How can a person with his and his wife’s millions can be Pakistan’s ambassador to US. His is a case of conflict of interest and is totally ineligible to be Ambassador to USA. What makes him ineligible is his American affiliations , as evident from his and his lady wife’s declaration of assets recently. This is a violation of normal don’ts of diplomatic practice particularly if he and his wife have dual nationality, one being American nationality. Ignoring time honored rules of diplomatic practices can be done only by those persons who believe that none of the prohibitions of diplomacy should apply to their intercourse with USA. There is a wisdom in this principle – do not appoint any one ambassador to that country where he has his riches and whose nationality he holds. Only such a person should be appointed who has no divided loyalties or has conflict of interests. And if his entire family suffers with this duality of loyalties and interests he is never appointed ambassador to that country where he is jeopardized by duality of interests.

Americans talk of terrorism where their own interests are threatened but violate law with relish where the interests of foreigners are concerned. Aafia Siddiqui’s kidnapping and false trial on cocked up charges of attacking a marine after snatching a rifle from him are one of those cock and bull stories which is an example of American terrorism against a frail Muslim lady. It is most deplorable and should be condemned in strongest words by any lover of justice. This black spot on America’s face can be wiped out only by releasing Aafia Siddiqui forthwith. Abu Gharib atrocities, Guantanamo Bay Camp atrocities and all these killings in Afghanistan and drone attacks on innocent Civilians are an insult to humanity recorded in the name of USA.

The Black water terrorism are proofs that America wants to claim immunities from charges of terrorism but calls any thing terrorism which others do to the Americans This is highly one sided standards of law. Terrorism is terrorism in all cases not that US can kidnap any number of Pak citizens pin false charges on them and arrange a sham trial and call it a case of crime or terrorism by a Pakistani citizen. To pick a weak Pak citizen against the all powerful US on its own territory is sheer gangsterism as it is in the case of American terrorism over Aafia Siddiqui. She is a brilliant chemistry expert and like Chemical Ali she must be silenced. Plain and simple. What chance she has of getting “justice” – a mockery of justice yet, but justice no.

This would indicate what matters with US is its own version, its own text or its own words, you may have hundreds of dialogues but this truth sticks.