The crucially important country that Trump isn't talking about

Pakistan, though sometimes ridiculed as a failed state, is a critically important country, with the world’s sixth-largest population and fastest-growing nuclear arsenal. Furthermore, it is key to the United States’ strategic interests in South and Central Asia, whether that be winding down the war in neighbouring Afghanistan, combatting terrorism, or preventing the escalation of hostilities with Pakistan’s arch-rival and fellow nuclear power, India, over the disputed region of Kashmir.

But Donald Trump said little about Pakistan (or Afghanistan) during the US presidential election and his administration is yet to articulate a strategy towards the region. Last year he had a bizarrely enthusiastic phone call with Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, which was heavy on flattery and light on substance. And last week General John Nicholson, US commander in Afghanistan, told Congress there would be a “holistic review” of America’s approach to Pakistan. But it is unclear how long that will take, and what the results may be.

An effective policy is urgently needed. First, because Pakistan is crucial to resolving the disastrous war in Afghanistan. Trump has pledged to keep American troops in the country, where the Kabul government is steadily losing territory and casualties hit record highs last year, according to a new UN report. It is assumed that Pakistan backs the US’ main adversaries, the Afghan Taliban, by granting them sanctuary across the border. If the Taliban is to be defeated, then Pakistan will have to stop supporting them and help force a truce.

But Washington is limited in its ability to crack the whip, because Pakistan provides access through its territory for supplies to reach US troops in Afghanistan. Islamabad has closed the border before, after skirmishes with NATO forces in late 2011, and could do so again. Russia allowed access from the north back then, but it is far from guaranteed that Putin would play ball now.

The best way for America to influence the Pakistanis, according to Afghanistan expert Barnett Rubin, is via China, which has close ties with the government in Islamabad. Moreover, China and the US have a shared interest in confronting militancy in the region, as a new report by the Hudson Institute emphasises. Beijing has terrorism concerns of its own, relating to the Uighurs, and also worries about the security of its massive infrastructure project, the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), linking China to the Arabian Sea.

There are other militant groups, besides the Afghan Taliban and Haqqani Network, that reportedly receive support from the Pakistani state. Lashkar-e Taiba and other organisations which operate in Kashmir are apparently used as proxies by Pakistan’s military to attack India. Violence between the two nuclear powers escalated last year after alleged Pakistani attacks across the Line of Control prompted retaliation from India. CPEC passes through Kashmir, so again Beijing has a strong interest in helping the US defuse these tensions.

Then there is al-Qaeda itself, which for years operated inside the country. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and other jihadists lived and worked in Pakistan prior to 9/11: indeed, the Sept 11 attacks were partly organised there. In 2011 Osama Bin Laden was found by US Navy SEALs at a compound in the garrison town of Abbottabad, leading to accusations that Pakistan’s military had protected him. And his former deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri, is now rumoured to be living in Balochistan.

The Hudson Institute, in its new report, proposes taking tougher measures against Pakistan. Firstly, America should stop providing military aid if Pakistan keeps supporting terrorist groups. Congress recently placed tighter restrictions on aid packages, forcing the Obama administration to halt funding last year, and these should continue, according to the report. The US could also threaten to revoke Pakistan’s status as a Major non-NATO ally and even designate the country as a state sponsor of terrorism unless firmer action is taken.

But this hardline approach could backfire and create new tensions. It might also be ineffective: Pakistan has carried on harbouring the Afghan militants for years, despite numerous entreaties by the US to stop. Secretary of Defense retired Gen James Mattis cast doubt on the validity of attaching conditions to aid, which he claimed had a “mixed history.” Coercion may be unnecessary, anyway, as Pakistan is already less supportive of the Taliban and more open to reconciliation talks with Afghanistan than it once was.

It is often assumed that Pakistan’s support for the Taliban is based on paranoid fantasies about India, namely that New Delhi is allied with the Afghan government in an effort to encircle Pakistan. But, while fear of India is no doubt alive and well in Islamabad, Pakistan has other reasons for tolerating the militants. Attempts to dislodge Taliban fighters from their sanctuaries could provoke retaliation and exacerbate Pakistan’s already serious domestic terrorism problem (only yesterday fourteen people died in a Lahore bombing).

Of course the US could target these fighters itself using drones. Drone strikes peaked under President Obama in 2010 and declined steadily thereafter, effectively ending with the killing of former Taliban leader Mullah Mansour in Balochistan last May. That strike caused uproar in Islamabad, which saw the attack as a violation of Pakistan’s sovereignty. The strikes are also highly unpopular with the local population and might create more enemies than they kill, as former US government officials have warned.

While Pakistan may shelter Afghan groups, it has cracked down ferociously on domestic terrorists. In 2014, the government of Nawaz Sharif launched a massive operation named Zarb-e Azb against the Pakistani Taliban and foreign fighters in Waziristan, on the Afghan border, which has proven to be quite successful. This was followed in January, 2015, by the approval of a sweeping new National Action Plan to combat militancy across the country. The appearance of Islamic State in the region has given this project extra urgency.

Pakistan cannot be ignored for long. Given its size, military power, and complex array of problems, it is even more important than Afghanistan. The US needs to devise an inclusive strategy that involves other countries, especially China, if it is to tackle the situation effectively. This will require a careful, conciliatory approach, not the reckless and inflammatory attitude Trump has shown so far. Travel bans, trade wars, and plans to bring back waterboarding will only make things worse.