Pakistan in Media

"They should be natural allies, but whether one likes it or not and for whatever reasons one wishes to name, the fact is that the foreign policy options of Afghanistan (drastically) and Pakistan (to a lesser extent) are limited by the will of the United States."

Editorial, Frintier Post, Pakistan
May 26, 2009

The commitment to jointly battle their common enemies of extremism, militancy and terrorism by the presidents of Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan at their Tehran summit was laudable. The real problem, however, is the history of relations over the least three decades among the three brotherly states.

Apart from their geographical proximity, they have much in common that should serve as a basis for everlastingly binding their peoples together. They should be natural allies.

Yet it has not been these commonalities that have shaped their relations. Instead, compulsions fraught with unquenchable animosity have often times been the drivers of their ties. Had they allowed there mutual affinities to guide their affairs, in all probability the three countries would not now be so blighted by the monstrosities of extremism, militancy and terrorism that exact such a heavy toll. There's no point going into that dismal past. What is done is done - and cannot be undone.

But if history can't be re-written, the narrative of what happens now and in the future is open. To do better this time will necessarily entail unvarnished sincerity, commitment and a steely resolve, come what may. But that's easier said than done. If the past is any guide, one must be indeed skeptical. Without apportioning blame, none of these three fraternal states has an unblemished track record. None have acted correctly and angelically; each has sinned against the others - even if in varying degree.

When Afghanistan allowed itself to be ravaged by civil strife and internecine conflict, incited, fueled and backed by foreigners, both Pakistan and Iran were caught fishing for trouble in Afghanistan's waters by backing opposing rivals. An example is the late 1990s, when Islamabad sat in the ruling Taliban’s corner while Tehran sided with their adversary, the Northern Alliance [as did the United States].

If all of this is over and real changes of heart have occurred in Kabul, Tehran and Islamabad, this should augur well for upcoming relations between the three. But there's a snag. For the Tehran Declaration to come to fruition, it is imperative that the three have complete sovereign control of their foreign policies. This cannot be said of Kabul or Islamabad, although Tehran may have decisive foreign policy control. Whether one likes it or not and for whatever reasons one wishes to name, the fact is that the foreign policy options of Afghanistan (drastically) and Pakistan (to a lesser extent) are limited by the will of the United States.

That leaves open the question of whether this new commitment among Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iran will succeed, as U.S. relations with Tehran remain frosty, notwithstanding the new U.S. administration’s warm overtures. Then there's a domestic factor that could potentially stall the execution of this commitment. Both Iran and Afghanistan will soon hold presidential elections and in both the countries, the incumbents are running again. So at least for now, carrying out this commitment is bound to take a backseat to hectic electioneering. And there's yet another predictable hitch: due to the lack of a serious challenger, Afghan President Karzai seems like a shoo-in. And since he is abhorred by the Obama Administration, there's feverish talk of elevating someone of Washington’s choice as the country’s true national leader [a prime minister], with Karzai reduced to being an ineffectual head of state [such as the office of Israeli president, presently occupied by Shimon Peres]. Given the overarching influence of the United States due to the huge amount of aid to the country, even regarding Afghanistan's domestic affairs, this may indeed come to pass.

Source