A. R. Jerral These two words - concerns and reservations - have become standard political and diplomatic expressions. These are vague words which carry multi-dimensional meanings without specifying anything. These provide a safe passage to wriggle out of a political dialogue and a way out of any commitment. These are used freely in domestic and international politics. Domestically, we hear political parties voicing their reservations when any situation surfaces and confronts the policymakers. Take the case of Kalabagh Dam. Whenever the government announces any plan about this dam, the political leadership of Khyber Pakhtun-khwa and Sindh voice their reservations without specifying what these are. This puts the policymakers on the defensive and the decision gets delayed or altogether cancelled. Nobody ever bothers to find out what the reservations are and how these can be removed or addressed. We cry about the shortage of water but do not build the dam that almost everyone feels is vital for the country. When this scribe was posted at Nowshera, in 1984, large demonstrations were held against the construction of the dam. I obtained the study done by WAPDA on this dam and found nothing in it that could be described as damaging to the interests of the province. I asked the Chief Minister of the then NWFP to publish the study for the information of the general public and then let them decide. But he dismissed my suggestion saying that I did not understand politics. This shows that reservations are pressures applied for political gains, not necessarily for the general public. In this backdrop, we see the same happening in Balochistan. The Balochs have their aspirations and so the political parties of the province do voice their demands. But whenever there are efforts undertaken by the central government to find the solutions of provincial problems, the political parties and the Baloch leaders voice their concerns and reservations without specifying their assumed fears and apprehensions. Thus, all that one hears are the two words - concerns and reservations. Presently, Karachi is passing through difficult times. We read about incidents of target killings, arson and looting. The government is searching for a comprehensive strategy to control the incidents in Karachi. This carnage is going on for quite some time, causing loss of life and property, not to mention the misery and sorrow inflicted on the people of this city. Karachi is the financial capital of Pakistan; the financial loss that these events cause cannot be determined as these discourage investors to make any business venture. The two main parties who blame each other, MQM and ANP, when called upon to find ways and means to stop this carnage also voice their reservations and concerns without specifying what these are. Moreover, the provincial and central governments, who are searching for a comprehensive strategy to end the bloody encounters, do not ask these parties to spell out their misgivings in concrete terms so that a solution can be found. In the absence of any definite understanding, the carnage will go on causing more miseries to the people. It appears that these vague terms are being used for ulterior motives - to gain political mileage at the cost of peace and harmony - despite tall claims of efforts being taken to control these events. Hence, domestically on the political horizon, both at the centre and the provinces, we keep on hearing these expressions of concerns and reservations by the political leaders. We, the general public, are quite ignorant about what these expressions mean and how the fears these denote can be alleviated. On international front, these expressions are used to convey vague fears and threats. During her last visit the US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, said that there can be no nuclear deal with Pakistan until US concerns are addressed. She also said that the US has reservations over the Pak-China nuclear cooperation. The result of the concern expressed by her became evident when the US administration announced that they will vote against the deal in the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG). Ms Clinton might have explained the concerns and reservations to the government functionaries with whom she had diplomatic parleys but the general public is unaware of these concerns and reservations. We, at our end, feel bad about it. However, the US did not announce any reservations and concerns while signing a deal with India to provide them the most advanced nuclear technology; and we are Americas most trusted ally in the war against terrorism. Are we the trusted ally? Mr Richard Holbrooke on his visit to the UK, recently, stated: Theres much more cooperation at every level, but I dont want to mislead you. It (Pakistan) is not yet where we hope it will be. Ms Clinton has repeatedly said that Osama and Mullah Omar are hiding somewhere in Pakistan; she has even accused that Pakistans army and civil officials know where the two are hiding. Nevertheless, Washington ignores the fact that our Prime Minister has repeatedly said that the US should provide plausible intelligence and Pakistan will act to apprehend these terrorists; his statements go unnoticed. That is the trust the American administration has in Pakistan. We usually forget the fact that in international relations there are no friends and no enemies. There are just national interests and aims that bring nations together and make them allies. Capitalistic West did not like Communist Russia, yet they were allies in both wars against Germany. After the WWII, they again became enemies and remained locked in a long cold war. The US is not a friend in the classic sense that we of an extrovert psyche understand. Our past experiences of our relationship should be enough to make that clear to us; however, we are slow learners. We pin hopes and expectations where none exist. We are friends today because circumstances prevailing so dictate. We were the frontline state in Americas war against the Soviets in Afghanistan and we were dumped when that war ended. The then trusted ally was subjected to sanctions and embargos. Apparently, I do not see any different treatment when this war ends. The expressions - concerns and reservations - provide a way out for the dominant ally to jettison Pakistan when they feel the need to do so. These also provide a political and diplomatic leverage to coerce Pakistan to do more. Prudence demands that whenever these phrases are thrown at us in domestic or international parleys, we should demand that these be translated into concrete and definite expressions for thorough deliberations to find suitable courses of actions beneficial to all concerned parties. These concerns and reservations should be deliberated in the National Assembly, in think-tanks and our media to achieve a national consensus. That will help us put up a united national stand in all problems facing Pakistan, internally or externally. A national policy having the full support of the entire nation will carry weight that no one will be able to ignore. The writer is a freelance columnist.