As the world changes around us and we try and reorient Pakistan's deeply divisive domestic policies, our foreign agenda remains largely unchanged. The president has shown fleeter footwork than our flatfooted foreign minister in dealing with the rapidly changing circumstances, opportunities and dangers.
In the early euphoric days of our return to our much missed role of frontline state, conventional wisdom had it that we would be able to leverage US support into pressuring India to return to the negotiating table and wrest some concessions from New Delhi over Kashmir. In those days, there was a line of thinking in Washington that showed some concern for tackling the root causes of terrorism in Palestine and Kashmir, among other hotspots.
But when the Taliban collapsed 'not with a bang but with a whimper' and the streets of the Muslim world failed to erupt, the hawks in the American administration stood vindicated and felt free to pursue a much more aggressive 'anti-terror' policy.
India perceived this change early and took full advantage of the attack on its parliament in December, holding Pakistan directly responsible, and deploying its forces on our border. Since then, Pakistan has been reduced to a defensive, reactive stance, fending off pressure from every quarter. Even Musharraf's "historic speech" announcing a complete turnabout in our Kashmir policy as well as an end to the jihadi culture fostered over the years by the ISI failed to elicit any reduction in the pressure.
Currently, the sticking point with New Delhi is the demand to hand over alleged criminals, 15 of whom are Indian. Our foreign minister first made the counterclaim that the Pakistan government has a list of its own of Indian terrorists we want extradited. When he was asked by New Delhi to produce the list, he backed off. Then the government dug up some 55-year old charge against Advani, India's hawkish home minister. Next, Sattar announced in Berlin that one of the accused in the Daniel Pearl kidnapping case made calls to three "highly placed Indian officials in New Delhi". Not surprisingly, the Indians asked for names and our foreign minister has again retreated.
This kind of flippancy makes it impossible for anybody to take him seriously. A sine qua non of diplomacy is a certain gravitas and a modicum of dignity. Mr Sattar has displayed neither of these qualities of late. Perhaps suddenly being elevated to international forums has caused oxygen starvation to set in. At a more serious level, we need to do some fundamental rethinking about the rapid changes taking place in our region, and thus far, there is little evidence to suggest that this is being done. One thing is clear and that is that Afghanistan is not going to be our backyard for the foreseeable future. No more pipe dreams of 'strategic depth'. If anything, the new government in Kabul has bad memories of our meddling in their affairs and prolonging their civil war. Their gratitude to us for helping them fight the Soviets has worn thin. As most of the Afghan refugees in Pakistan were Pakhtoon, their tribes often supported the Taliban who are now history, so very few brownie points to cash in here.
Thus while we have many fences to mend and a lot of atoning to do, there are no signs that this is currently on the foreign office agenda. Basking in the glow of being Washington's blue-eyed boys is all very well, but Afghanistan is right next door while American interest in Pakistan is transient. We need to quickly develop a healthy relationship of equals with Kabul based on respect and shared values.
In the Central Asian republics, the politics of oil and gas are taking on a tempo of its own. The American military presence in the region is causing growing concern in Moscow and Beijing. There are dangers and opportunities in the situation, but again, there is little to suggest that these issues are being debated in Islamabad.
The recent visit of the Chinese prime minister to India with a large delegation shows once again that nothing is static in international relations. Now that China has become a member of the WTO, it is seeking business opportunities in the region. As it builds up its economic and technological base, the last thing it wants is a confrontation on its south-western borders that could conceivably drag it in. The Chinese leadership has been quietly and publicly urging Pakistan to sort out the Kashmir issue with India bilaterally.
When Mr Sattar asks all and sundry to mediate the Kashmir problem, he forgets that unless both parties to a dispute are willing to call in a mediator, it just won't work. And as India has consistently refused to even consider a third-party role, what is the point of harping on it? The truth of the matter is that leaders in both countries have to be mature enough to untangle the Kashmir mess so that the rest of us can get on with life.
In a recent opinion poll commissioned by the monthly Herald, when people were asked what they considered their most pressing problem, 31% said it was unemployment; for 21% it was the fear of an Indo-Pakistan war; 15% thought inflation; and a mere 4% felt it was the Kashmir issue. So much for 'Kashmir being in our blood'.
According to one estimate, Pakistan subsidizes Azad Kashmir to the extent of four billion rupees. Add to this the further billions that we spend on our perpetual confrontation with India and you get an idea about the wastefulness of this senseless conflict. Both sides have been chanting their respective mantras on both sides of the border; far too often, they exchange artillery shells and bullets. Countless lives have been lost and destinies blighted. Surely it is high time we shed this albatross and moved on.