The US decision to withhold $50 million remaining in military reimbursements to Pakistan for fiscal year 2016 for not doing "enough to blunt the Islamist militant Haqqani network," should not surprise any body. It conveys a plain fact; neither the on going nearly daily losses of the army and the police nor the counter-terrorism drive that has seen marked reduction in violence nor the battering the Pakistani economy has taken since the onset of the counter-terror war have convinced the US establishment of the intent. Nor does the June 2014 Operation Zarbe Azb, very much aligned with a longstanding US demand  for action in North Waziristan, seem to have impacted Washington’s narrative on Pakistan. The do-more-mantra has continued relentlessly and now narrowed down on the Haqqani Network and thus the latest decision to withhold the $50 million funds from 2016. It’s about time to act like a self-respecting and confident nation which is ready to correct its own course as well as being poised to address others’ concerns on issues such as terrorism, regional peace and cooperation Based on the incessant and at times acrimonious pressure and disagreements on Afghanistan and India - and the alignment of these three countries’ position on Pakistan - one would tend to conclude that the partnership that began with the Operation Enduring Freedom in October 2001, eventually covered under the US Coalition Support Funds program has nearly run its course. Neither did major non-NATO ally status for Pakistan help change the primary US narrative on Pakistan’s efforts against terrorism. While the US security establishment sticks to its old narrative, new factors also appear to have come into play that are making this narrative politically superfluous. It has outlived its utility for various reasons. Firstly, the new regional realignment that separates the geopolitical Indo-Afghan-US alliance from that the one comprising China, Pakistan, Russia, Turkey and to a certain extent Iran. Both...

The circumstances surrounding and events accompanying the Panama Papers remind me of two meetings I had with former premier Benazir Bhutto in March/April 1999 shortly before Ms Bhutto flew out into exile. One meeting took place in the presence of Barrister Masood Kausar and Rao Iqbal Sikandar. The other in the presence of a couple of journalists, including Talat Hussein and Ayaz Gul. Farhatullah Babar, the unflinching PPP support, may or may not remember but he was also present on both occasions. Only hours before that conversation, Bhutto had spoken to the press at the Marriott Hotel, where she vented her frustration with the Ehtesab Bureau Court (headed by a former Sharif henchman Saifur Rehman). As she was explaining the highhandedness of the government, I asked her a question related to the Surrey Rockwood Estate that Asif Ali Zardari had bought a few months earlier. Instead of responding on the spot, she asked me to meet her at the Zardari House in F-8/2 later that evening. Just for five minutes, she said, waving to Babar sahib. When I eventually met her in the presence of Barrister Kausar and Rao Sikandar that afternoon, we ended up interacting for nearly an hour. No admission of the Surrey estate though. “It’s all bullshit.” She also defended the news about millions of dollars in her foreign currency accounts. The law permits that, she said referring to the FOREX laws enacted by Nawaz Sharif. But is that fair for a public representative not to declare the source of income, I quipped. I am not supposed to declare those things... I have earnings from my lectures. May be that is a bad law. But did you ever attempt to amend a bad law, which has become a conduit for money laundering? No, may be we should have done it, she said. And then the climax when I turned the conversation again on the Surrey Mansion (which Zardari eventually claimed as his property shortly before the UK authorities were to put it to auction in 2004). Left with no plausible answer on the...

The circumstances surrounding and events accompanying the Panama Papers remind me of two meetings I had with former premier Benazir Bhutto in March/April 1999 shortly before Ms Bhutto flew out into exile. One meeting took place in the presence of Barrister Masood Kausar and Rao Iqbal Sikandar. The other in the presence of a couple of journalists, including Talat Hussein and Ayaz Gul. Farhatullah Babar, the unflinching PPP support, may or may not remember but he was also present on both occasions. Only hours before that conversation, Bhutto had spoken to the press at the Marriott Hotel, where she vented her frustration with the Ehtesab Bureau Court (headed by a former Sharif henchman Saifur Rehman). As she was explaining the highhandedness of the government, I asked her a question related to the Surrey Rockwood Estate that Asif Ali Zardari had bought a few months earlier. Instead of responding on the spot, she asked me to meet her at the Zardari House in F-8/2 later that evening. Just for five minutes, she said, waving to Babar sahib. When I eventually met her in the presence of Barrister Kausar and Rao Sikandar that afternoon, we ended up interacting for nearly an hour. No admission of the Surrey estate though. “It’s all bullshit.” She also defended the news about millions of dollars in her foreign currency accounts. The law permits that, she said referring to the FOREX laws enacted by Nawaz Sharif. But is that fair for a public representative not to declare the source of income, I quipped. I am not supposed to declare those things... I have earnings from my lectures. May be that is a bad law. But did you ever attempt to amend a bad law, which has become a conduit for money laundering? No, may be we should have done it, she said. And then the climax when I turned the conversation again on the Surrey Mansion (which Zardari eventually claimed as his property shortly before the UK authorities were to put it to auction in 2004). Left with no plausible answer on the...