top of page

By:

Correspondent

21 August 2024 at 10:20:16 am

Broker’s Farce

If diplomacy is theatre, then the recently collapsed US–Iran talks in Islamabad was an elaborate farce staged with all the solemnity of statecraft but none of its credibility. After 21 hours of marathon discussions, the outcome was as predictable as it was embarrassing with no agreement or breakthrough achieved, and no illusions left intact. Except, perhaps, among those still inclined to believe that Pakistan could ever serve as an ‘honest broker.’ But the fact that the talks failed is hardly...

Broker’s Farce

If diplomacy is theatre, then the recently collapsed US–Iran talks in Islamabad was an elaborate farce staged with all the solemnity of statecraft but none of its credibility. After 21 hours of marathon discussions, the outcome was as predictable as it was embarrassing with no agreement or breakthrough achieved, and no illusions left intact. Except, perhaps, among those still inclined to believe that Pakistan could ever serve as an ‘honest broker.’ But the fact that the talks failed is hardly the story. It is that they were held at all in Pakistan, a nation that has openly sponsored terror. The premise itself was surreal. Two bitter adversaries - the United States and Iran - were expected to bridge their deepest differences under the watchful mediation of a country whose own record in international affairs is deeply compromised. Pakistan was a curious choice of venue, akin to asking an arsonist to supervise a fire safety drill. Pakistan’s proponents – from Donald Trump and a section of his inner circle to its admirers within India’s self-styled ‘left-liberal’ circles - have long indulged the fiction of Islamabad as a misunderstood stabilising force in the region. This section of the Indian commentariat in particular, with its strident opposition to PM Modi and the ruling BJP, rhapsodize about Pakistan’s ‘strategic importance,’ its ‘geopolitical leverage’ and its supposed ability to convene difficult conversations. For anyone with eyes to see, the far more inconvenient truth is that Pakistan’s state apparatus has for decades been entangled with precisely the kinds of non-state actors and duplicities that make genuine diplomacy impossible. To cast such a state as a neutral mediator in one of the world’s most sensitive geopolitical disputes was wilfully absurd to begin with. Predictably, the talks foundered on the most intractable issues. The United States, represented by Vice President JD Vance, reiterated its insistence on a verifiable commitment from Iran to abandon any pursuit of nuclear weapons capability. Iran, for its part, dismissed Washington’s demands as excessive and unlawful, pointing to broader grievances that included sanctions, war reparations and control over the Strait of Hormuz. These are structural antagonisms embedded in decades of conflict. What, then, was Pakistan expected to contribute? Moral authority? Strategic clarity? Institutional trust? It possesses none in sufficient measure. Instead, Islamabad offered what it often does - optics without substance, posturing without consequence. One might reasonably ask whether the intent was ever genuine. For Pakistan, the benefits of hosting such talks are largely reputational. In a country perennially seeking international validation and frequent international bailouts, playing host to high-stakes negotiations offers a fleeting veneer of relevance. It allows its leadership to project an image of indispensability, even as its domestic and economic realities tell a different story. While diplomacy is the art of restraining power without humiliation, Pakistan’s turn as broker looked more like the art of staging illusions without consequence. Can America pick better mediators?

Omar welcomes Indus Water Treaty suspension, calls it “most unfair document” for J&K



SRINAGAR: Jammu and Kashmir Chief Minister Omar Abdullah on Friday welcomed the Central government’s decision to suspend the 1960 Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) with Pakistan following the deadly Pahalgam attack that claimed 26 lives. He also referred to the treaty as the “most unfair document” for the people of J&K.


“The Government of India has taken some steps. As far as Jammu and Kashmir is concerned, let’s be honest. We have never been in favour of the Indus Waters Treaty. We have always believed it to be the most unfair document to people of J&K,” Abdullah told reporters in Srinagar after meeting representatives from the tourism, trade, and industry sectors. However, he noted that the long-term impact of this move is still uncertain.


The IWT suspension is part of India’s response to the brutal attack. Other actions include expelling Pakistani military attaches and shutting down the Attari land-transit point immediately.


When questioned about the impact of the April 22 attack on the region’s tourism industry, Abdullah dismissed concerns about monetary losses. “At this juncture, we are not counting rupees or paisa. Not one of the businessmen or stakeholders in the tourism industry who attended the meeting lamented the loss of business. Not one of them expressed any concern about what would happen to them.”


“Right now, our priority is to express solidarity with the bereaved,” he said, adding, “At some point in future, we may sit down to discuss the financial implications (of the attack) on J&K’s economy. But not a single stakeholder present in the meeting raised a demand for monetary relief for the losses they are suffering.”


Omar described the tourist exodus from J&K after the massacre as “heartbreaking”. The future of the Valley’s tourism sector remains uncertain, with widespread trip cancellations following the attack.

4o

Comments

bottom of page