Islamabad, May 5 (IANS) Pakistan is talking peace while waging war with Afghanistan. While portraying itself as a diplomatic actor committed to talks by attending formal and informal negotiations, backing Track 1.5 processes in Istanbul and indicating openness for de-escalation, Pakistan is also using coercion and pressure to influence Afghanistan, a report has detailed.
“In geopolitics, credibility is considered as currency. States may pursue complex, even contradictory policies, but when the gap between rhetoric and behaviour becomes structural, it ceases to be strategy and becomes doctrine. Pakistan’s approach to Afghanistan increasingly fits this pattern, a sustained policy of talking peace while waging war,” Zarif Aminyar, a former Senior Economic Advisor to the Administrative Office of former Afghan President Ashraf Ghani, wrote in Eurasia Review.
“At one level, Islamabad presents itself as a diplomatic actor committed to dialogue. It participates in formal and informal negotiations, supports Track 1.5 processes in Istanbul and signals openness to de-escalation. At another level, however, its behavior reflects a continued reliance on coercion and pressure as primary instruments of influence in Afghanistan. These two tracks do not reinforce each other; they cancel each other out. The result is not leverage, but a credibility deficit,” he mentioned further.
This duality of Pakistan demonstrates a deeper strategic orientation often related to what can be called Islamabad’s pursuit of “strategic depth” in Afghanistan. Pakistan’s strategic depth is its idea that influence in Afghanistan is needed to secure Pakistan’s position in a competitive regional environment, the report mentioned. This has resulted in Pakistan being ready to tolerate and at times back non-state actors as tools of policy. The consequences of Pakistan’s policy have been profound, including a chronic cycle of instability in Afghanistan.
Pakistan’s contradictions in the approach is not limited to Afghanistan. Recently, Pakistan presented itself as a mediator in US and Iran war, offering diplomatic channels and portraying itself as a stabilising interlocutor. Mediation enhances international standing and secures importance in geopolitical order. However, it also demonstrates that Pakistan’s foreign policy includes peacemaking in one theatre and destabilisation in another, according the Eurasia Review report.
This, Aminyar emphasised, is not a new pattern as Pakistan’s long-standing ties with US have been characterised by cooperation layered over mistrust. Formally an ally in counter-terrorism efforts, Pakistan has been harbouring militants and the discovery of Al-Qaeda founder Osama bin Laden in Abbottabad in 2011 crystallized this perception.
“It underscored the extent to which parallel policies can coexist within a single state apparatus: partnership and contradiction, alignment and divergence. From a realist perspective, such behavior can be understood as hedging which is maximizing strategic flexibility in an uncertain environment. States often maintain multiple channels of influence, including relationships with non-state actors, to preserve options. But hedging has limits. When it systematically undermines regional stability, it generates negative externalities that eventually rebound on the state itself,” Aminyar wrote in Eurasia Review.
“In Pakistan’s case, the persistence of instability in Afghanistan has not produced durable strategic advantage; it has entrenched insecurity across borders and eroded trust with partners. For the United States, the temptation to once again lean on Pakistan as a regional intermediary risks repeating a familiar miscalculation. Partnerships built on partial alignment and managed contradictions are inherently fragile. They may deliver short-term tactical gains, but they rarely sustain long-term strategic outcomes. For White House to treat Pakistan as a fully reliable partner without addressing these underlying inconsistencies is to privilege expediency over realism,” he further stated.
–IANS
akl/as
