ISLAMABAD \u2014\u00a0The latest Pak-US Strategic Dialogue\u00a0held this week delivered little of real substance, although there were some surprises and the outcome was generally positive, analysts say.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The bilateral relationship is improving in breadth and scope,\u00a0but key differences remain, most notably over Pakistan’s nuclear program.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The strategic dialogue included\u00a0discussions on measures to reduce the risk of Indo-Pakistani conflict;\u00a0recognition of the need for a peaceful resolution of the Kashmir dispute;\u00a0preventing proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and delivery of technology; supporting the Afghan peace and reconciliation process; countering terrorism;\u00a0as well as defense and security cooperation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Yet\u00a0despite the wide ranging statement released after the talks “there’s really not much of substance,”\u00a0Brian Cloughley, analyst\u00a0and former Australian defense attach\u00e9 to Islamabad,\u00a0said. Even so, he\u00a0added,\u00a0“It is generous of the US to pledge $250 million for ‘relief, recovery and rehabilitation of internally displaced persons from the [Federally Administered Tribal Areas]’, and the tenor is generally positive.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Cloughley was surprised that Kashmir was mentioned in the dialogue\u00a0\u2014 a taboo subject for Washington due to Indian concerns.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
“Before his election in 2008, Obama said he would welcome US involvement in seeking a solution, but he hasn’t uttered a peep ever since, it being official US policy that it is a bilateral matter.\u00a0 Sure, there’s no indication that there might be (as there should be) third-party (i.e. UN) mediation, but to even mention the word Kashmir is anathema to India,”\u00a0he said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Claude Rakisits, a senior fellow at Georgetown University’s School of Foreign Service and an expert on Pakistani affairs,\u00a0highlights this has come at a cost for Pakistan.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
“In order to placate the Indians, the joint statement also reaffirmed [Prime Minister] Nawaz Sharif’s stated commitment to bring to justice\u200b the perpetrators of the January 2, 2016, attack on the Pathankot air base.\u00a0So the pressure is on Pakistan to be seen to be tak[ing]\u00a0action against those who were behind this terrorist act,”\u00a0he said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
“This point was reiterated yesterday by India’s foreign secretary, who demanded this before bilateral talks could resume,” Rakisits added.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
However,\u00a0Cloughley said ultimately the statement was “significant in a negative way that there’s no mention of major equipment supply.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Pakistan’s navy was expecting to\u00a0acquire\u00a0surplus US Oliver Hazard Perry class frigates to replace worn out ex-British warships as a stopgap measure before a more permanent solution can be found. There were also plans to supply Pakistan with eight GRC 43 cutters to patrol its exclusive economic zone.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Yet Congress has\u00a0blocked the\u00a0transfer of both\u00a0and there appears to be no resolution in sight.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
“Congress would never approve of transfer of more combat vessels\u00a0and provision of the F-16s\u00a0is still up in the air.\u00a0Congress might well decide to flex its muscles in this regard, if for no other reason than to be disobliging to the White House,”\u00a0Cloughley said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
There has been a much-discussed push to sell eight new-build F-16 fighter jets\u00a0to Pakistan, although partial US funding for the jets has been opposed by US lawmakers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Rakisits believes the F-16 deal may be pushed through, but this could be the extent of equipment sales due to the current political scene in the US.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
“Given the encouraging and supportive words in the joint statement about Pakistan’s constructive role in the Quadrilateral Coordination Group’s activities in trying to find a negotiated settlement to end the conflict in Afghanistan, I believe objectively that the Obama administration should be able to push the sale of the F-16s through Congress,”\u00a0he said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
“However, having said that, Obama may still lose this legislative battle because of his weak foreign policy\u00a0hand in general and the highly divided nature of Congress in this election year.\u00a0Put differently, Pakistan may well be a collateral damage of domestic American politics,” he added.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
A notable difference between the two sides was over Pakistan’s nuclear weapons program. Washington would like Pakistan to roll back and\/or cap aspects of this, but Islamabad steadfastly refuses.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Foreign affairs adviser to Pakistan’s prime minister, Sartaj Aziz, who led the Pakistani delegation, was clear no unilateral moves to curtail the program would be acceptable, adding that the\u00a0program is\u00a0dynamic in response to Indian military expansion\/modernization.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In effect, neither side has room to maneuver on this issue.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
“Given Obama’s weak domestic and foreign policy hand, it is most unlikely that his administration would spend valuable political capital in recognizing de jure Pakistan as a nuclear power. It would be tantamount to Washington giving its blessing to Pakistan’s nuclear deterrence program to counter India’s conventional advantage,”\u00a0Rakisits said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
“This is not something that is about to happen when Washington is keen to build up a long-term strategic relationship with India in order to counter China’s growing presence in the Indian Ocean region.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Likewise, Mansoor Ahmed, Stanton Nuclear Security junior faculty fellow at\u00a0Harvard University’s Kennedy School and an expert on Pakistan’s nuclear deterrent and delivery systems, believes no Pakistani government will change the official position.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
“Ostensibly, Pakistan has been entrapped by its own demand for nuclear mainstreaming and normalization which could not be achieved without a quid pro quo for the US which has already helped grant India a de\u00a0facto nuclear weapon status through the [Nuclear Suppliers Group] and the [International Atomic Energy Agency] under the 2008 nuclear deal,”\u00a0he said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
“Pakistan cannot hope to secure any such deal without actually offering tangible concessions such as a capping of its battlefield nuclear weapons production; limits on ballistic missile ranges; and lifting of boycott on the [Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty], all of which would be politically suicidal for any government in Pakistan,” Ahmed added.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The latest Pak-US Strategic Dialogue held this week delivered little of real substance, although there were some surprises and the outcome was generally positive, analysts say.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":7,"featured_media":51760,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_yoast_wpseo_meta-robots-noindex":"","_yoast_wpseo_meta-robots-nofollow":"","_yoast_wpseo_canonical":"","_acf":"","_yoast_wpseo_primary_category":33,"_jetpack_feature_clip_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","_smg_distribution_targets":[]},"categories":[33,19],"tags":[],"coauthors":[3413],"class_list":["post-56341","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-home","category-pentagon"],"acf":{"subheadline":"","legacy_arc_id":"V35KEZ6VL5CAZNH2C2RWLUHWUI","arc_canonical_url":"\/home\/2016\/03\/04\/little-of-substance-in-pak-us-strategic-dialogue\/","remove_feature_photo":false,"is_sponsored":false,"subtype":"","redirect_url":"","disable_inline_ads":false,"native_logo_pretext":"Presented By:"},"yoast_head":"\n