For the last few years, authorities in the US and Pakistan have been boasting about a steady improvement in the bilateral relationship. Both sides claimed that they have a better understanding of each other’s working and closely cooperate to keep any mistrust in check. Yet, a periodic report released by Congressional Research Services paints a rather gloomy picture giving the impression that nothing has changed in the past one decade. The report puts the blame on Pakistan.
“As a haven for numerous Islamist extremist and terrorist groups, and with the world’s fastest growing arsenal of nuclear weapons, Pakistan is at the top of many governments’ international security agenda,” the more than 20 pages long report states.
The report adds that successive governments “are widely believed to have tolerated and even supported some of these [terror and militant groups] as proxies” in Islamabad’s historical tensions and conflicts with neighbors.
It highlighted the old rhetoric that the security agencies were willing to make distinctions between “good” and “bad” Islamist extremist groups, maintaining supportive relations with Afghan insurgents and anti-India militant groups operating from Pakistani territory. It also outlines that America’s most wanted enemies are still widely believed to reside in Pakistan, among them Al Qaeda chief Ayman al-Zawahiri, Afghan Taliban chief Mullah Omar, and Afghan insurgent Haqqani Network leader Sirajuddin Haqqani.
However, Dr Manzur Ejaz, a seasoned South Asia expert termed the report “extremely biased,” saying that facts on the ground have changed drastically. Pakistan has shunned the dual policy of so-called abetting pro-state groups, as anti-militancy operations throughout the country seem without discrimination.
The CRS report also launched major offensive operations against militant groups sheltered in FATA earlier last year, which “buoyed US officials confidence in Pakistan’s cooperation” with international efforts to stabilize Afghanistan. But it says that only happened after years of US government prodding. Similarly, it claims, that the Secretary of State John Kerry’s visit to Pakistan in January this year actually yielded “a formal ban on the Haqqani Network.”
The APS incident outraged Pakistan which resulted in a crackdown on TTP, but according to the report, experts also believe that the “clearing” phase of military operations have met with successes but the “holding” phase has proven more difficult.
Pakistan expert Bilal Qureshi, who has also worked for a couple of US think tanks in the past, agrees and calls it a weakness on part of the leadership. “Holding phase requires determination and political sustainability, but the volatile areas have been ignored for so long that any change in the system will take time to hold ground,” he said.
Independent analysts say in the report that “so long as Afghan Taliban forces enjoy sanctuary in Quetta and in the FATA, the Afghan insurgency will persist.” They cited the Pentagon’s most recent biennial report to Congress, saying: “Pakistan uses these proxy forces to hedge against the loss of induce in Afghanistan and to counter India’s superior military.”
Manzur Ejaz trashes this claim too. He said there might be a possibility that Afghan Taliban got leeway, but that could be so because the Afghan government wants Pakistan to bring the Afghan Taliban on table. “The US and Afghan government’s must on board as well,” he hinted.
The report called Pakistan-India relations problematic, stating that Pakistan Army was obstructing the efforts of Pakistani business interests, seeking resolution of territorial disputes as a prerequisite. Dr Ejaz said that India’s stance has hardened in the past few months. “Various statements from Indian officials have been more obstructing. Brazen commentary on Pak-China projects are an example of creating unnecessary hurdles in Pak-India process,” he said.
The report also criticized the PML-N government. “Sharif did not demonstrate an ability to exert the civilian government’s control over domestic security.” It quoted a State Department spokesperson saying: “We support the constitutional and electoral process in Pakistan, which produced Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif. We do not support any extra-constitutional chafes to that democratic system or people attempting to impose them.”
Dr Ejaz concurs. He said the Sharif government was facing severe governance issues, and lacks will to take any major political or security related decision. He added that the government was least interested in ordering a military operation in North Waziristan, and the army had to take a lead. “It’s their ideological weakness, they might not have ordered any operation if the situation was not so desperate,” he said.
The CRS report expands on Pakistan’s regional issues and its relationship with neighboring countries. However, it hints that the country’s ties with America exist not because of mutual trust. It strongly suggests that the duality continues without any change.
The country specific CRS report is regarded as a document to keep US lawmakers informed about the state of affairs and bilateral relations with other countries. Although its prepared by noted experts, its not an official report of the US Congress.
“As a haven for numerous Islamist extremist and terrorist groups, and with the world’s fastest growing arsenal of nuclear weapons, Pakistan is at the top of many governments’ international security agenda,” the more than 20 pages long report states.
The report adds that successive governments “are widely believed to have tolerated and even supported some of these [terror and militant groups] as proxies” in Islamabad’s historical tensions and conflicts with neighbors.
It highlighted the old rhetoric that the security agencies were willing to make distinctions between “good” and “bad” Islamist extremist groups, maintaining supportive relations with Afghan insurgents and anti-India militant groups operating from Pakistani territory. It also outlines that America’s most wanted enemies are still widely believed to reside in Pakistan, among them Al Qaeda chief Ayman al-Zawahiri, Afghan Taliban chief Mullah Omar, and Afghan insurgent Haqqani Network leader Sirajuddin Haqqani.
However, Dr Manzur Ejaz, a seasoned South Asia expert termed the report “extremely biased,” saying that facts on the ground have changed drastically. Pakistan has shunned the dual policy of so-called abetting pro-state groups, as anti-militancy operations throughout the country seem without discrimination.
The CRS report also launched major offensive operations against militant groups sheltered in FATA earlier last year, which “buoyed US officials confidence in Pakistan’s cooperation” with international efforts to stabilize Afghanistan. But it says that only happened after years of US government prodding. Similarly, it claims, that the Secretary of State John Kerry’s visit to Pakistan in January this year actually yielded “a formal ban on the Haqqani Network.”
The APS incident outraged Pakistan which resulted in a crackdown on TTP, but according to the report, experts also believe that the “clearing” phase of military operations have met with successes but the “holding” phase has proven more difficult.
Pakistan expert Bilal Qureshi, who has also worked for a couple of US think tanks in the past, agrees and calls it a weakness on part of the leadership. “Holding phase requires determination and political sustainability, but the volatile areas have been ignored for so long that any change in the system will take time to hold ground,” he said.
Independent analysts say in the report that “so long as Afghan Taliban forces enjoy sanctuary in Quetta and in the FATA, the Afghan insurgency will persist.” They cited the Pentagon’s most recent biennial report to Congress, saying: “Pakistan uses these proxy forces to hedge against the loss of induce in Afghanistan and to counter India’s superior military.”
Manzur Ejaz trashes this claim too. He said there might be a possibility that Afghan Taliban got leeway, but that could be so because the Afghan government wants Pakistan to bring the Afghan Taliban on table. “The US and Afghan government’s must on board as well,” he hinted.
The report called Pakistan-India relations problematic, stating that Pakistan Army was obstructing the efforts of Pakistani business interests, seeking resolution of territorial disputes as a prerequisite. Dr Ejaz said that India’s stance has hardened in the past few months. “Various statements from Indian officials have been more obstructing. Brazen commentary on Pak-China projects are an example of creating unnecessary hurdles in Pak-India process,” he said.
The report also criticized the PML-N government. “Sharif did not demonstrate an ability to exert the civilian government’s control over domestic security.” It quoted a State Department spokesperson saying: “We support the constitutional and electoral process in Pakistan, which produced Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif. We do not support any extra-constitutional chafes to that democratic system or people attempting to impose them.”
Dr Ejaz concurs. He said the Sharif government was facing severe governance issues, and lacks will to take any major political or security related decision. He added that the government was least interested in ordering a military operation in North Waziristan, and the army had to take a lead. “It’s their ideological weakness, they might not have ordered any operation if the situation was not so desperate,” he said.
The CRS report expands on Pakistan’s regional issues and its relationship with neighboring countries. However, it hints that the country’s ties with America exist not because of mutual trust. It strongly suggests that the duality continues without any change.
The country specific CRS report is regarded as a document to keep US lawmakers informed about the state of affairs and bilateral relations with other countries. Although its prepared by noted experts, its not an official report of the US Congress.