|
Maleeha Lodhi // DAWN: 03 March 2025
PRESIDENT Donald Trump’s foreign policy actions and pronouncements have created geopolitical upheaval at an already unsettled time in the world. It has sent countries scrambling to find ways to navigate the new global terrain and figure out how to engage with Washington under Trump’s mercurial management. He has upended US foreign policy on several fronts including the Middle East and Ukraine, jettisoned Western allies, all but abandoned the transatlantic alliance, and delivered more blows to multilateralism. His imposition of tariffs on friends and competitors alike has raised the spectre of a global trade war. Trump’s ‘America First’ unilateralist approach is further fragmenting the global order and ushering in a disruptive and volatile phase in international affairs.
This is the context in which Islamabad is weighing where it will figure with Trump’s America. Both the government and opposition have been trying, so far unsuccessfully, to elicit the new administration’s attention. In fact, relations between the US and Pakistan have been at an inflection point since the American withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2021. For over two decades, the war in Afghanistan provided the principal basis for engagement between the US and Pakistan even as it became a source of mutual mistrust and disenchantment.
After that ended, Pakistan’s diminished geopolitical importance for Washington drove relations to a low point. On the other hand, Pakistan’s long-standing strategic ties with China continued to intensify. Increasingly, America was seen as a self-absorbed and inconsistent partner as well as a reluctant regional player. China was perceived as having the will, money and growing global clout needed for a more constructive and enduring relationship that met both Pakistan’s defence and economic interests.
Nevertheless, Pakistan sought a reset in ties with the US. But this proved elusive. President Joe Biden’s tenure saw little high-level engagement and he showed no interest in interacting with Pakistan’s leaders. The low point in relations was also reflected in the fact that the US secretary of state never once visited Pakistan during the Biden years. Military-to-military contacts, however, continued as did CT cooperation. The Biden administration’s parting shot was to impose sanctions on several Pakistani entities aiding its missile programme. Although this had little impact, the tough statement accompanying the move, promptly denounced by Islamabad, did sour ties.
In Trump’s first term, relations got off to a turbulent start when he accused Pakistan of “lies and deceit”, claiming it was not helpful in Afghanistan despite receiving “billions of dollars” in US aid. He went on to suspend security assistance including coalition support funds. But re-engagement got underway when Trump decided on exiting Afghanistan and sought Pakistan’s help for talks with the Taliban to strike a deal at Doha. Apart from that and the evident geniality between Trump and former prime minister Imran Khan, the bilateral relationship remained undefined and shorn of substance.
This posed the challenge then as it does today of resetting ties in a fundamentally changed global and regional environment. The history of the roller coaster relationship, with cyclical swings between intense engagement and deep estrangement, shows that positive transformations in ties were always driven by geopolitical storms or superpower dynamics extraneous to the bilateral relationship. America’s shifting geopolitical concerns that shaped its regional priorities also defined relations with Pakistan. They drove bilateral ties into different phases with security issues determining the relationship.
In the Cold War, when the US aim was to contain communism, Pakistan became America’s ‘most allied ally’. Then after 1979 there was a mutual interest to roll back the Russian invasion of Afghanistan. The third, post-9/11 phase involved defeating Al Qaeda in the ‘war on terror’. This ended with the US pullout from Afghanistan.
Despite their close cooperation in these three phases, there was always an elephant in the room. In the first, it was India. The US priority was to defeat communism, but for Pakistan ties with Washington were part of its external balancing strategy of seeking extra-regional support to address its security dilemma given the vast power asymmetry with a hostile India. In the second phase, the elephant in the room was Pakistan’s nuclear programme even as the two collaborated in the joint struggle against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. This divergence was to surface after the Russian defeat when the US imposed wide-ranging sanctions on Islamabad on the nuclear issue and Pakistan became America’s most sanctioned friend.
In the most recent phase, Pakistan’s communication channels with the Taliban produced a disconnect with the US. Islamabad believed that one day everyone would have to deal with them but Washington saw this as evidence of Pakistan’s ‘double game’.
It is against this backdrop that Islamabad seeks to reconfigure ties with the US based on Pakistan’s intrinsic importance and not as a sub-set of America’s other concerns. But a reset faces many challenges.
For a start, Pakistan does not figure in the Trump administration’s recast priorities. There are other constraining factors. America’s top strategic priority is to contain China. Although Pakistan says it wants to balance relations between the US and China, it sees its strategic future to lie with China and will not be part of any anti-China coalition. This limits the space for Pakistan-US relations. So does America’s growing strategic and economic relationship with India, its partner of choice in the region in its strategy to project India as a counterweight to China. Finding space between these two strategic realities is a challenge for the Pakistan-US relationship. Another limiting factor is Pakistan’s economic weakness which acts as a major impediment for meaningful relations.
Important as future relations with the US are, perhaps until Pakistan is able to empower itself economically and fix its domestic problems a phase of benign disengagement between the two countries is preferable. Keeping its head down — for now — with an administration that only wants to play by its own rules and whose proclivity for capricious conduct can create unnecessary problems is an option worth considering by Pakistan. This is not an argument to put diplomacy on hold but to consider whether over-eagerness for engagement with a preoccupied and transactional Washington without having much to offer or gain is in Pakistan’s interest. Showing strategic patience and waiting it out may serve the country better.
The writer is a former ambassador to the US, UK and UN.
Published in Dawn, March 3rd, 2025
===============================================================================
Huma Yusuf // DAWN: 03 March 2025
WHILE Pakistan clings to fantasies of hybridity regarding its political framework, the Economist Intelligence Unit has categorised it as an authoritarian regime. The EIU’s latest Democracy Index ranks Pakistan 124 out of 165 states and among the top 10 worst performers on factors such as government functioning, political participation and culture, electoral processes and civil liberties.
We are not alone. The EIU classifies 60 countries as authoritarian regimes, which means 39.2 per cent of the global population is living under authoritarian conditions (45pc live in democracies, full or flawed, while 15pc are in hybrid regimes with features of both electoral democracies and authoritarianism). Europe has the strongest democratic performance, but this is tenuous — The Economist published an analysis showing that hard-right parties are Europe’s most popular by vote share, which will likely increasingly reflect in government composition and policymaking over coming years.
The EIU attributes this backsliding to several factors: economic pressures and growing wealth inequality; the paucity of new political narratives or solutions to challenges such as inflation, migration and joblessness; the sense that governments and political parties are estranged from the voting public; the impotence of governments as more decision-making is outsourced to non-elected bodies (courts, central banks, corporations); civic disengagement and a resort to reactionary, populist politics.
What these global analyses don’t highlight sufficiently is the societal impact of authoritarianism. There is a ripple effect of authoritarian and autocratic politics at the social, communal and even familial levels. Recognising this is key to understanding that none of us are immune to the impact of authoritarianism. And this recognition may spark less complacency and resignation in the face of democratic erosion.
The societal impact of authoritarianism stems from the fact that authoritarians want to stay in power. To do so, they must cultivate an elite around them that is equally vested in their retaining power. In the case of military-run regimes, this elite is usually the military institution itself, though it may extend to political parties, the judiciary and media.
In this context, political participation is reconfigured as demonstrations of loyalty to the authoritarian rulers. The need to demonstrate loyalty results in an implicated elite consolidating support for authoritarianism, even if it goes against their own interests. In this scenario, ‘public interest’ is redefined as the need to appease the powers that be. Our parliament over the past year, from the 26th Amendment to Peca, has demonstrated how this works.
Once entrenched, authoritarian regimes and their enablers focus on the few agenda items that are critical to ensuring their survival at the expense of all other policy areas. Many domains thus fall to neglect, increasing inequality, driving marginalisation and fuelling grievances — and so creating those oppositional currents that reinforce authoritarian narratives that breed fear and emphasise the need for centralised control.
From attempts to militarise agriculture to silence dissent and neutralise universities by putting them under the purview of subservient bureaucrats, we can see this process in Pakistan. What is to be done? Protest and legal and political challenges remain fragmented and are targeted by ascendant authoritarians. External stakeholders who in the past may have gently rapped ruling wrists and nudged for free speech or religious freedoms are now preoccupied rolling back their own civil liberties and slashing aid budgets.
What’s left is an ‘each person for himself’ mentality, which further erodes the national fabric. Signs of this unfortunately abound in Pakistan today. The richest are offshoring, and the poorest are handing their fates to human traffickers and rickety boats. According to the Pakistan Institute of Development Economics, 37pc of Pakistanis want to leave the country, with the desire most pronounced among the most educated.
Those left behind are taking a cue from the authoritarians in charge and prioritising the need for survival. Only this can explain the daily slew of horrific news: children killed by reckless drivers; religious minorities threatened with baseless blasphemy accusations; wives’ bodies offered up to settle gambling debts; civilians snacking at eateries assaulted by some influential’s private security guards; miners sent down deadly shafts; Baloch people ‘disappeared’. The truth is, there’s no hiding from the destructive effects of authoritarianism, and escape comes at high, possibly fatal, costs. A common purpose, rather than an isolationist survival instinct, may be the only way forward.
The writer is a political and integrity risk analyst.
X: @humayusuf
Published in Dawn, March 3rd, 2025
===============================================================================
DAWN EDITORIAL: 03 March 2025
OUR justice system has truly failed to protect women, a recent SSDO report has revealed. With conviction rates hovering at an appalling 0.5pc for honour killings and rape, 0.1pc for kidnapping, and a mere 1.3pc for domestic violence, we have a real crisis of accountability on our hands. Each day in Pakistan in 2024 brought with it an average of 67 kidnappings, 19 rapes, six domestic violence cases and two honour killings. And these are the instances that were reported. Social stigma and distrust in the justice system ensure that only a fraction of incidents in the country is brought to the fore. From the registration of cases to conviction, the path is riddled with obstacles. Statistics show that in Punjab, out of 4,641 rape cases, only 20 resulted in convictions. Shockingly, Sindh and Balochistan recorded zero rape convictions.
So, what has led to such abysmal conditions when it comes to gender-based violence in our country? For one, patriarchal norms that have long permeated law-enforcement and judicial bodies lead to an environment where victims are often not believed or are pressured to withdraw their cases. Out-of-court settlements have sadly become the norm, often sanctioned by informal jirgas and panchayats. Investigations, if they ever occur, are routinely mishandled with inadequate evidence collection and victim intimidation. Procedural delays see cases stretch on for years without resolution. Police departments lack specialised GBV units, which has resulted in inconsistent handling of cases, allowing the perpetrators to evade justice. Reforms are sorely needed if we are to address these issues. Firstly, female police officers must be hired on priority. Female officers bring essential perspective and sensitivity to GBV cases and create a more comfortable environment for survivors to report crimes. Currently, women represent less than 2pc of our police force — a figure that must increase dramatically if we hope to build trust with victims. In addition, fast-track courts that are dedicated to hearing GBV cases must be established to overcome judicial delays. Legal aid for survivors must be guaranteed and expanded and out-of-court settlements in cases of sexual and domestic violence must be outlawed. For their part, law-enforcement agencies must improve forensic evidence collection and digitally track cases to prevent bureaucratic delays. Without decisive action, countless women will continue to suffer violence, with little hope of seeing their perpetrators brought to book.
Published in Dawn, March 3rd, 2025
===============================================================================
Umair Javed // DAWN: 03 March 2025
LAST week on these pages, Khurram Husain wrote about the rapidly diminishing viability of Pakistan’s bailout-dependent economic strategy. Global political realignments under the new Trump administration may very well usher in the end, or at least administer a hard squeeze, of multilateral lending. In its absence, the status quo will prove to be untenable.
The economy’s lack of viability is already sharply apparent since 2022. Dollar liquidity in the shape of geostrategic rents are not forthcoming since the US withdrawal from Afghanistan. Neither are any major investment or aid dollars from Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and China. The IMF programme, while still partly dictated by US foreign policy, is handing out extremely tough targets. Short of a major event that changes Pakistan’s position in global politics, these lean times are going to continue. Fixing the economy to make it grow sustainably without external assistance is the only option left.
The list of fixes has been proposed many times in the last three decades. Reducing wasteful government expenditure through untargeted subsidies and the PSDP, deregulating key prices, offloading state-owned enterprises, expanding the tax base to cover real estate and retail/wholesale trade, and removing government involvement in various markets such as agriculture and electricity are all listed as desirable reforms.
Some of these proposals are essential if for no other reason but to reduce the frequency with which the economy goes bust. But these are frequently put forward in a detached and highly technocratic manner. Rarely do we see reform conversations accompanied by any consideration of what the economy is supposed to do for millions of ordinary Pakistanis.
The absence of an economic vision linked to the people is a real gap in public discourse. However, it is one that can be filled by putting forward a progressive agenda for the economy.
Arguably, such an agenda has been missing for the past several decades. With the failure of nationalisation and state-directed development models, progressive and left-wing views on the economy have mostly remained confined to questions of redistribution and welfare policy.
These have yielded some success through federal interventions such as the BISP cash transfer programme, and provincial programmes such as health service delivery and insurance, education scholarships, public transport, and post-disaster housing provision.
However, redistribution can only take place if there is something to distribute. A stagnating economy produces smaller pools of surplus for the state to collect via taxation and then spend as welfare. In its absence, there is no option but to borrow. The consequences of that strategy are already visible through the large burden of debt servicing, much of it in service of wasteful expenditure.
Anyone committed to greater equity, social mobility, and improved life chances for Pakistani citizens must then think not just about redistribution, but also about growth and productivity in the economy. In other words, how do we get economic growth that allows the needs of people to be met.
One way to tackle this problem is to put the issue of human capital front and centre. A progressive vision for the economy is one that seeks to unlock growth by raising productivity of the workforce. Meaning that health and education can no longer be seen as belated welfare concerns, but rather as essential for growth.
The pursuit of human capital as a central policy would mean a significant shift in government policy. It would naturally involve greater attention to and spending on health and education. This can only be achieved by removing elite-biased exemptions and curbing rampant tax evasion by big actors in several sectors such as real estate and commerce. But equally, it would also involve finding ways to reduce the tax burden on salaried and working-class households, which is currently harming their chances for social mobility and growth.
In the domain of production, a progressive agenda should focus on sectors where most Pakistanis actually work. Meaning that it would involve policymaking that improves the surplus generating capacity of small and medium-sized producers in industry and agriculture, which are currently responsible for hosting the vast majority of the labour force.
This means undoing policy instruments that favour inefficient large enterprises (blanket subsidies, preferential credit, trade protections) in the industrial sector. In agriculture, it means a rethink of initiatives such as Green Pakistan, which is expected to divert water resources away from producers in other parts of the country.
Alongside these and other such interventions, it is also important to revise some conventional left-wing wisdom based on the local context. What will definitely not work is giving the Pakistani state more control of economic processes. There are public sector bureaucracies in the world that are efficient and accountable and which can be entrusted with production and distribution of economic goods. The Pakistani public sector in its current incarnation has neither of those characteristics.
It is essentially unaccountable to citizens. And it has evolved into being highly and rigidly inefficient. Giving it more direct control is simply another way of allowing state officials to distribute benefits to themselves or their clients, as demonstrated by the last several decades. Having PIA on government books, for example, has served no growth or welfare purpose for the last two decades. The same is true for many other entities, especially in the electricity sector. Divestment (privatisation, offloading management control) but with basic welfare protections to reduce livelihood shocks is the only viable path forward for the time being.
Ultimately, understanding and prioritising the needs of the citizenry should be the starting point for any conversation around economic reform. Pakistanis today require both access to basic welfare services and the opportunity to earn a decent living. Acknowledging this combination will lead to a reform agenda that may actually move the country out of its multi-decade-long development stagnation.
The writer teaches sociology at Lums.
X: @umairjav
Published in Dawn, March 3rd, 2025
==============================================================================
DAWN EDITORIAL: 03 March 2025
WESTERN countries do not have a heart for poor, non-white migrants. A recent BBC News report comprising leaked audios exposes the complicity of Greek authorities in the botched rescue attempts for the Adriana, which sank with 700 people onboard in 2023; 350 were Pakistanis and only 82 bodies were retrieved. In one call, Greek rescue officials order the captain to inform the approaching boat that passengers do not want to arrive in Greece. In another, they ask the “big red ship” captain to “write it in your logbook” that the migrants want to reach Italy. Their foul play was confirmed by a Pakistani survivor. This news coincided with the arrival of the remains of six Pakistanis lost in the boat tragedy off the Libyan coast; of the 63 nationals, 16 perished and, Pakistani authorities say, 37 survivors have been tracked but 10 are missing.
Pakistan does little for a populace wracked by deepening poverty and violence. Recently, the law minister stated that 1,638 human traffickers had been arrested and 458 were convicted. While a clampdown is desperately needed, what is the government’s blueprint for unemployment, pay gap, climate displacement, and other pressures that compel people to risk their lives for a better future? India and Bangladesh have accelerated development at home by providing skill training to their youth for employment. We, sadly, are a long way from ensuring peace and economic progress so that our citizens can willingly shun the dangers of flight. The fact that hundreds of Pakistanis who took illegal routes to Europe have perished is an international disgrace. The toll of the persistent internal and external cruelty perpetrated on our people should sear our collective conscience. As the truth behind Adriana and Lucky Star exposes Fortress Europe’s racism and xenophobia, Western nations must spare a thought for their own role in exacerbating the same conditions. That is the white man’s true burden.
Published in Dawn, March 3rd, 2025
===============================================================================
ALSO READ
|
