Underlying these differences is the lack of a common strategic vision and goals for the wider region, which

Washington shares increasingly with Delhi and which makes them partners in the true sense. In his public remarks, Obama touched only obliquely on the question of drone strikes, saying that in partnering together to fight terrorism the two countries needed to continue to find constructive ways that respect akistan!s sovereignty as well as the concerns of "both countries#. U$ officials have since indicated that U$ was still committed to the policy Obama announced in a speech last %ay in which he defended the drone programme as being in compliance with both U$ and international law but laid out certain fresh guidelines for their use. Under this approach, drone attacks would be carried out only on "terrorists who pose a continuing and imminent threat to the &merican people# and when there is "near' certainty that no civilians will be killed or in(ured.# )awa* has given a more optimistic assessment on the drone issue. +e told reporters last ,hursday that the drone issue would "hopefully soon be resolved according to the wishes of the akistani people#. ,he e-pectation is that the frequency of drone strikes will be further scaled down. ,he ma(or positive outcome of the visit for akistan was that Obama acknowledged akistan!s interests and concerns in the transition in &fghanistan. .esides making a pledge to brief akistan as this process moves forward and on a "long'term strategy for stability in the region#, he also e-pressed confidence in being able to "achieve a goal that is good for &fghanistan but also helps to protect akistan.# $ome U$ officials have in the past admitted grudgingly that India is using &fghan soil to stir up trouble in akistan. U$ &f ak envoy Dobbins, for instance, said in an interview with the ../ last &ugust that akistan!s concerns over India!s presence in &fghanistan were "not groundless#, though they were "e-aggerated#. "We recognise#, Dobbins said, "that there is some infiltration of hostile militants from 0&fghanistan into akistan1...# .ut Obama!s comments on seeking an outcome in &fghanistan that "protects akistan# are perhaps the first public admission, howsoever indirect, by a U$ president that akistan faces a threat emanating from &fghan soil that it needs to guard against. ,he positive tone of Obama!s remarks on akistan!s stakes in the peace and stability of &fghanistan and the absence of any public name'calling by U$ officials during )awa*!s visit on safe havens in akistan for the &fghan ,aliban is in welcome contrast to their

past behaviour. It would not have been possible without our support to the &fghan reconciliation and peace process that Washington has been trying to put in place for more than a year. On akistan'India relations, Obama fulfilled the promise he made to %anmohan last month by taking up the questions of the trial of those implicated in the %umbai terrorist attack, the activities of 2amaat'ud'Dawah and the case of +afi* $aeed. In his statement after the meeting, the U$ president also spoke about the "e-port# of terrorism from akistan to other countries. In response, )awa* told Obama that the issue of terrorism is of as much concern to akistan as to India if not more. +e could also have reminded the U$ president that the trial in India of the perpetrators of the $am(hauta 3-press bombing, which took place 45 months before %umbai, has been proceeding at a suspiciously leisurely pace and has also not been concluded as yet, even though the crime was committed in India and all the witnesses are within the country. Obama was full of praise for )awa*!s commitment to reduce tensions with India, describing it as "a very wise path# and in this conte-t mentioned the akistan prime minister!s meeting with his Indian counterpart last month. ,he main tangible achievement of that meeting was an agreement to restore peace and tranquillity on the 6o/. .ut since then, there have been fresh incidents of 6o/ violation. )awa* asked the U$ to use its influence to encourage akistan'India dialogue to resolve outstanding issues and on 6o/ violations. Washington predictably reaffirmed its position that while it is prepared to use its influence to encourage improvement in akistan'India relations, it will not play a direct role. & day before )awa*!s visit, the Obama government also reaffirmed its stance on 7ashmir, saying that it is for akistan and India to determine the "pace, scope and character of their dialogue# on the issue. )evertheless, )awa* did well to bring up 7ashmir in his meeting with Obama. +is call for a U$ role in resolving the dispute is, however, another matter. 6ike his obsession with "picking up the threads of dialogue with India from where he left off in 4555#, )awa*!s repeated appeals for a U$ role in settling the 7ashmir issue is a hangover from his last term of office. )ot only is Washington now completely dismissive of the idea, any U$ involvement, in the highly unlikely event that it takes place, is likely to go in India!s favour. )awa* should, therefore, stop harping on this proposal and instead spend his efforts and those of his government on raising the issue of the right of self'determination and other human rights of the 7ashmiris in international fora, as akistan used to do till 899:. In his remarks after the meeting with Obama, )awa* said that the two leaders had discussed a "common vision# to build robust bilateral cooperation. +e also spoke of akistan!s desire for a broad'based, stable and enduring partnership.

)awa*!s visit shows how far we still are from that goal. .ut it served to remove some of the mistrust between the two sides on ways of bringing peace and stability to &fghanistan. ,his should help smooth the ongoing transition in &fghanistan, a matter of vital interest to akistan. ;orging a common vision for the post'894: period will be an even more difficult task and may be left for the future. ,he writer is a former member of the akistan ;oreign $ervice. 3mail< asife*di=yahoo.com