Dar-Rubio talks to focus on regional tensions
Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar and US Secretary of State Marco Rubio are set to hold talks in Washington on Friday, the Foreign Office confirmed, saying bilateral ties, regional and international issues as well as India-Pakistan relationship would top the agenda.
"I can confirm that the meeting is scheduled for tomorrow, and the entire range of issues on the bilateral agenda, as well as important regional and global issues including the situation in the Middle East, and Iran will be discussed," Shafqat Ali Khan told reporters on Thursday at the weekly briefing.
"Exchange of views will also take place on the Pakistan-India question, for which we remain grateful for the role played by the US in de-escalation of tensions leading to ceasefire," he added.
The meeting between Dar and Rubio is part of renewed efforts by the two sides to revive the structured dialogue between Pakistan and the US. The Biden administration completely ignored Pakistan and there had been no or little contacts at the level of foreign ministers.
However, contrary to expectations, bilateral ties between Pakistan and the US have seen a positive turnaround since President Donald Trump began his second term.
Pakistan's cooperation to arrest one of the masterminds of Abbey Gate Bombing in Kabul in August 2021 led to the rapprochement. President Trump in his maiden address praised Pakistan's counterterrorism efforts.
What brought the two countries further close was the India-Pakistan conflict in May following the Pahalgam attack. While Pakistan acknowledged the Trump Administration's positive role in brokering the ceasefire, India kept challenging the US claims.
Pakistan in order to make further inroads at the White House nominated President Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize for his courageous leadership and peace efforts in the subcontinent.
Regarding reports of the US-Pakistan dialogue including discussion on Jammu & Kashmir and the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT), the Spokesperson confirmed these issues remain central to Pakistan's diplomatic agenda and are expected to be raised in the DPM/FM's meeting with US Secretary of State Marco Rubio.
Asked about President Trump's recent remarks about credit for defusing a near-nuclear crisis in South Asia, Khan said: "We have repeatedly acknowledged the role of friendly nations, including the US. The facts of that crisis are well known."
When asked, the Foreign Office spokesperson said Pakistan engages with all countries in good faith, and would continue to invite India to come to the negotiating table and move towards a peaceful settlement of disputes.
"But the key question is for India to decide what kind of policy it wants to adopt. As far as Pakistan is concerned, our position is very clear. We have, multiple times, acknowledged and thanked the US intervention and the role it played in the de-escalation of the recent crisis," Shafqat said.
"But again, it is for India to decide the route it wants to take, the policy it wants to adopt. Diplomatic engagement is not a favor extended by one country to another; it is in the common interest of both countries and of regional stability and global peace," he added.
Meanwhile, the spokesperson described Interior Minister Mohsin Naqvi's recent visit to Afghanistan as "very successful," saying it reflected the steady positive momentum in bilateral relations.
Shafqat said the visit should be seen in the broader context of improving ties, citing the Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister's visit to Kabul on April 19, 2025, as a "watershed moment."
"There is a steady positive momentum in interactions, and the quality of relations has significantly improved. Both sides are working to further solidify the diplomatic gains, maintaining and accelerating this positive momentum," Khan said.
The spokesperson emphasized that the interior ministry's agenda primarily focused on security and counterterrorism — issues that remain a key part of discussions between the two neighbors.
"We have repeatedly reiterated what kind of relations we want with Afghanistan. However, one of the stumbling blocks is the sanctuaries enjoyed by terrorists there," the spokesperson noted.
He added that Pakistan had conveyed its concerns to Kabul, and the Afghan side was showing "receptivity" to these issues. "The technical discussions are ongoing. I cannot go into specifics, but in political terms, the visit was very successful," Khan said.
Highlighting the broader context of ties, the Foreign Office maintained that cooperation in the security sector must be viewed as part of the overall positivity and improvement in relations between the two "brotherly neighboring countries".
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Recorder
an hour ago
- Business Recorder
Lebanon's Hezbollah rejects cabinet decision to disarm it
BEIRUT: Hezbollah said Wednesday that it would treat a Lebanese government decision to disarm the group 'as if it did not exist', accusing the cabinet of committing a 'grave sin'. Amid heavy US pressure and fears Israel could expand its strikes on Lebanon, Prime Minister Nawaf Salam said Tuesday that the government had tasked the army with developing a plan to restrict weapons to government forces by year end. The plan is to be presented to the government by the end of August for discussion and approval, and another cabinet meeting has been scheduled for Thursday to continue the talks, including on a US-proposed timetable for disarmament. Hezbollah said the government had 'committed a grave sin by taking the decision to disarm Lebanon of its weapons to resist the Israeli enemy'. The decision is unprecedented since Lebanon's civil war factions gave up their weapons three and a half decades ago. Hezbollah chief says missiles will fall on Israel if it resumes war on Lebanon 'This decision undermines Lebanon's sovereignty and gives Israel a free hand to tamper with its security, geography, politics and future existence… Therefore, we will treat this decision as if it does not exist,' the group said in a statement. 'Serves Israel's interests' The government said its decision came as part of implementing a November ceasefire that sought to end more than a year of hostilities between Israel and Hezbollah, which culminated in two months of full-blown war. Hezbollah said it viewed the government's move as 'the result of dictates from US envoy' Tom Barrack. It 'fully serves Israel's interests and leaves Lebanon exposed to the Israeli enemy without any deterrence', the group said. Hezbollah was the only faction that kept its weapons after Lebanon's 1975-1990 civil war. It emerged weakened politically and militarily from its latest conflict with Israel, its arsenal pummelled and its senior leadership decimated. Israel has kept up its strikes on Hezbollah and other targets despite the November truce, and has threatened to keep doing so until the group has been disarmed. An Israeli strike on the southern town of Tulin on Wednesday killed one person and wounded another, the health ministry said. Hezbollah chief says slain predecessor Nasrallah to be buried on 23rd Israel also launched a series of air strikes on southern Lebanon, wounding several people according to Lebanon's state-run National News Agency. Hezbollah said Israel must halt those attacks before any domestic debate about its weapons and a new defence strategy could begin. 'Pivotal moment' 'We are open to dialogue, ending the Israeli aggression against Lebanon, liberating its land, releasing prisoners, working to build the state, and rebuilding what was destroyed by the brutal aggression,' the group said. Hezbollah is 'prepared to discuss a national security strategy', but not under Israeli fire, it added. Two ministers affiliated with Hezbollah and its ally the Amal movement walked out of Tuesday's meeting. Hezbollah described the walkout as 'an expression of rejection' of the government's 'decision to subject Lebanon to American tutelage and Israeli occupation'. The Amal movement, headed by parliament speaker Nabih Berri, accused the government of 'rushing to offer more gratuitous concessions' to Israel when it should have sought to end the ongoing attacks. It called Thursday's cabinet meeting 'an opportunity for correction'. Hezbollah opponent the Lebanese Forces, one of the country's two main Christian parties, said the cabinet's decision to disarm the militant group was 'a pivotal moment in Lebanon's modern history – a long-overdue step toward restoring full state authority and sovereignty'. The Free Patriotic Movement, the other major Christian party and a former ally of Hezbollah, said it was in favour of the army receiving the group's weapons 'to strengthen Lebanon's defensive power'. Iran's Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said in a televised interview that any decision on disarmament 'will ultimately rest with Hezbollah itself'. 'We support it from afar, but we do not intervene in its decisions,' he added, noting that the group had 'rebuilt itself' following setbacks during its war with Israel.
Express Tribune
an hour ago
- Express Tribune
Kashmir, Khan and echoes of betrayed promises
The writer is a public policy analyst based in Lahore. She can be reached at durdananajam1@ Listen to article August 5 has come to symbolise two distinct narratives in Pakistan. For supporters of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) — which now represents an overwhelming majority of the population, thanks to the establishment's relentless and illogical rivalry with Imran Khan — it marks the second anniversary of their leader's incarceration. At the official level, however, the day is commemorated in solidarity with the people of Indian-occupied Kashmir, whose semi-autonomous status and special rights were stripped following the abrogation of Articles 370 and 35-A of the Indian constitution. Yet, one suspects that most Pakistanis are aware of the constitutional intricacies affecting Kashmiris. Given the mass exodus from Pakistan and the alarming rise in poverty, it's understandable why many would hesitate to wish the same fate upon Kashmiris — being absorbed into a nation deliberately kept broken and dysfunctional by its ruling elite. The condition of those living in Pakistan-administered Azad Kashmir is, perhaps, evidence enough of this grim reality. In 2018, PTI emerged as one of Pakistan's most popular political parties. By 2025, it has reclaimed that status. In the intervening years, PTI governed for three years before being pushed to the political margins through a familiar tactic: the formation of a united opposition. In Pakistan, political unity is rare and usually reserved for two occasions — when legislation serves personal or business interests; and when the ruling party must be ousted under the guise of national interest. Many analysts and PTI loyalists argue that Imran Khan should have declined the premiership in 2018. They believe that leveraging his popularity from the opposition benches could have secured him a sweeping mandate in subsequent elections — free from establishment strings. With legislative strength, he could have pursued bold reforms with full institutional backing. Instead, Khan opted for hybrid governance, believing he would be treated differently than his predecessors. Like most Pakistanis, he assumed that his unwavering loyalty to Pakistan would earn him institutional support. After all, no previous leader had prioritised national interest over personal gain. From 2014 to 2018, Khan relentlessly branded the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) as "thieves", embedding this narrative deep into public consciousness. Despite reservations about his alliance with the establishment, many hoped Khan's government would be allowed to function independently, free from judicial interference. Over time, he cultivated an aura of indispensability. His trust in the establishment led him — and the public - to believe that the very "thieves" he helped remove would never return to power until held accountable. But like all constructs built on fragile assumptions, this belief crumbled under the weight of reality. By April 9, 2021, Khan's popularity had waned, largely due to the inevitable governance challenges arising from a hybrid and compromised system. Yet, overnight, he surged back to prominence when PTI was ousted and replaced by the very political actors the establishment had long vilified. The irony was not lost on the public. The next day, Pakistanis across the country — and in diaspora communities in the US and the UK — took to the streets. Their protest wasn't just about PTI's removal; it was a collective mourning of the collapse of trust in the establishment and the erosion of democratic values. When Shahbaz Sharif was appointed Prime Minister, he was facing indictment in a multi-million-dollar financial fraud case. Instead of facing justice, he was greeted with rose petals - a stark reminder of the selective accountability that plagues Pakistan's political system. By April 10, 2021, Imran Khan stood alone as the only credible figure in Pakistan's political landscape — for an vast majority of the population. As predicted, Khan remained the most popular leader in 2024 and won the elections with a resounding mandate. Had he trusted the democratic process instead of relying on power brokers, the trajectory might have been different. His two-year resistance to unconstitutional interventions and the public's shattered trust in the military have plunged the country into a state of collective frustration. The illegitimacy of the PDM 2.0 government is evident to all — except those who engineered it. The people stand with Khan because they see in him a reflection of their own victimhood at the hands of a power structure that, though designed to serve the nation, has become its greatest adversary. Today, the pressing question is: Can Imran Khan survive the ruthless persecution of his party and the inhumane conditions of his imprisonment? History offers a sobering pattern. Pakistan's most popular leaders — those who believed in the power of the people — Liaquat Ali Khan, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto and Benazir Bhutto — all met unnatural ends. Khan's defiance of absolute power and his rivals' surrender to it have set the tone for Pakistan's future. The king stands naked. No matter how desperately he tries to cloak himself, the people see through the hypocrisy, illegitimacy and usurpation of power. August 5 stands as a testament to the resilience of people who refuse to be silenced. In commemorating this day, Pakistanis are not just mourning losses — they are reclaiming their right to choose, to question, and to hope.
Express Tribune
an hour ago
- Express Tribune
The trade brawl
Listen to article India and the United States seem to have hit an unending argument over tariffs. The brinkmanship, however, is on the part of White House as President Trump has honed an attitude of pushing his allies and adversaries to the wall as he goes on to negotiate new trade concessions. Trump's new-found irksomeness with Russia, after a brief episode of cordiality, is at the crux of policymaking as the White House incumbent wants to penalise every state that indulges in profitable business with Moscow. Trump's decision to slap 50% tariffs on imports from Delhi, doubled from 25%, as a penalty for oil imports from Russia is likely to dip their bilateralism to lowest ebbs. India is also being blamed for fuelling the war in Ukraine, and for outsourcing Russian oil to destinations in Europe. In a rejoinder, Delhi says that its purchases from Russia have helped stabilise oil prices by easing the pressure on supplies from other regions. Trump's new contention, nonetheless, is that India should offer "zero tariff" for US goods import into India, and this is literally an unworkable equation. Thus, the standoff is graduating into one of the biggest trade brawls at a time when the US administration has not been able to settle down with China, Canada and major European partners over tariffs and concessions. Pakistan, apparently, was smart enough to get away with 19% tariffs — a rolled-down equation in adverse circumstances. This singling out of India is likely to have an impact in strategic terms with the US, as Delhi has no choice but to stick to its oil imports from Russia that account for one-third of its consumption. Will this jeopardise the special relationship Trump and Indian PM Narendra Modi were eager to strike in South Asia in terms of containing China is anybody's guess. India would be better advised to value regionalism, and open new vistas of cooperation with Beijing as well as Islamabad. There is a lot in geo-economics to share, and India's attitude of segregation is costing connectivity and prosperity in the region.
