At a well-attended meeting at the National Defence University in Washington on August 16, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Secretary of Defence Leon Panetta tried to describe the “troubled” Pakistan-US relationship. Mr Panetta, formerly director of the CIA, had a lot to say on the subject, while Secretary Clinton made a better effort to describe it as “bilateral efforts to preserve national interests of both sides”. According to a report in this newspaper, Mr Panetta said that the US had little choice but to maintain its relationship with Pakistan despite the latter’s contradictory behaviour as America’s partner in the war against terrorism. Ms Clinton thought that the US was willing to acknowledge the differences it had with Pakistan on approaching the war on terror and she said that this stemmed from the latter’s “national interest” to which it (Pakistan) had all the rights. Since Pakistan has always enjoyed more intimate relations with the Pentagon and less intimate ones with the US State Department, the press conference seemed like a switching of roles between the two over Pakistan.
Mr Panetta outlined the “differences” briefly: Pakistan has links with the Haqqani network, which he said was continuing to carry out cross-border attacks on US forces in Afghanistan and that it has “a relationship with the Lashkar-e-Taiba that goes into India and threatens attacks there”. He was clear in his mind that the US was compelled to maintain a relationship it did not relish because of the compulsions of war against terrorism in which Pakistan played a crucial role. Ms Clinton, however, conveyed the impression that though ‘transactional’, the Pakistan-US equation was not under sufferance and was there to stay. Both did not say what Pakistan’s interests were, but it would be fair to assume that a large portion relates to concerns about India. Also, of late, they would be concerned with the issue of drones in that Pakistan wants a complete end to this strategy used by the Americans. Panetta was more matter of fact. He included Pakistan’s status of a nuclear state as one of the factors that compelled the US to remain soft on Pakistan. It would not be out of place to presume that some observers will read this as a precursor to a coming rupture in ties between the two states.
The two countries, unfortunately, are challenging each other to make the final decision and cut the umbilical cord. The US has not exactly followed Ms Clinton’s policy of restraint. It has suspended the strategic dialogue with Pakistan, withheld the $800 million in military assistance to Pakistan and arrested a Kashmiri activist that Pakistan funded, a revelation that surely must not have been new. Meanwhile, ‘leaks’ in the American press say that Pakistan allowed the Chinese a peek into the stealth technology of a US helicopter that crashed in Pakistan. (Both Pakistan and China have strongly denied this.)
It has to be said that Pakistan has acted out of anger rather than policy after the killing of Osama bin Laden, although the CIA-ISI spat was on since 2010 when a report prepared at an American university alleged that the agency was in effect funding the Taliban to kill American soldiers in Afghanistan. The arrest of Raymond Davis in Pakistan was a nadir in this relationship. Nato supplies, already subject to colossal corruption, have been vandalised in Pakistan and American officials are being harassed in an unprecedented drive by the Pakistani police, which must be happening only with orders from elsewhere.
No matter what Ms Clinton says, the Pakistan-US relationship remains on a rocky path. Peoples on both sides suffer from paranoid emotions; and Pakistan could be standing on the precipice of a desperate decision to save its India policy at the cost of losing America’s support. Out of the two, most of the negative fallout will be on Pakistan. And that is precisely why it must let go off the anger over the Abbottabad raid and formulate its ties with America on the basis of pragmatism and reality.
Published in The Express Tribune, August 18th, 2011.
COMMENTS (13)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
1713509570-0/Taylor-Swift-Album-Release-(1)1713509570-0-270x192.webp)
@John: Strong lobbying? must be joke. Pakistan is not known for its lobbying skill to "deceive" USA. This is USA's own conflicting character and interests that keep USA coming to Pak for cooperation. Yesterdays Mujaheddin and Osama were assets, today terrorist. Super hypocritic characters of USA can be seen even today. All media presstitutes of USA are presenting rebels in Libya, Syria as Heroes and people fighting against forien occupation in Iraq and afghanistan and Kashmir as Terrorists what a joke?. The best case scenerio for Pak would be to totally reevaluate its relationship with USA and keep her intersts paramount on any new deal with USA. How arrogant Mr.Jhon is by saying aid on case by case basis. The country which has no money available to pay to its government employees and contractors unless they increase debt ceiling should feel ashame lecturing others. Pak woud be better off without cunning relationship of USA. please leave us....
For years Pakistan used a strong lobbying in Washington to get her acts overlooked. Abbotabad was the last straw. While it is true that US will continue to fund the humanitarian program in Pakistan unconditionally for years to come, all other transactional programs are going to be on case by case basis, whether PAK likes it or not, for next twenty years. PAK made a wrong choice in picking its players in Afghanistan and in Kashmir. Unfortunately, people of PAK have no say in this and it is a tragedy. Rocky relationship with US will continue along the bumpy road for years to come. Neither PAK leadership nor PAK military can afford to severe its ties with US. PAK drew wrong set of cards and has to continue to play hoping for better cards. Such better cards are surprisingly in PAK sleeves and everyone knows it.
@Cautious: True leaders have all the guts to answer honestly. Pakistan is not short of such people however they are not at the helm of affairs. Moreover, CIA and Americans are master of deceptions, creating stories. So how does it matter if you keep lying to world or your own congress. Still they could not answer why building-7 near WTC fell down without being hit by a plane?
@Rob Miller: Either one should be naive or ignorant or serious lack of knowledge to understand true US role in Afghanistan. US has destabilized total region. Utter arrogance, incompetency and lack of understanding of US military establishment to the situation on ground has led world to brink of next major world war. USA must bring first their own house in order before lecturing others. If we need to choose between two devils, Pakistan should choose smaller devil.
@Aslam Husain:
Please continue with your ties with Haqqni and other networks if you still feel that is your future. We have least concerns. Affirmation of a status should be commanded not begged. With the kind of proliferation happening it may not be very long before the world realises how dangerous the place has become.
It is time for the Democratic leadership to take the reins of Pakistani Foreign and Security policies into its own hands and divest the Military of this burden. The Military has exhausted its bag of tricks and the results on the ground bring no cheer. Lies and duplicity has run its course and the tolerance for continuation of the same is incredibly low. There should be no Ego involved in addressing the divergent issues and finding a comprehensive solution. The Americans obviously do not approve of this country's love and support for the Haqqani network or the LET. The writing is on the wall "change course or suffer an economic meltdown". There are no easy options but false bravado and macho statements will not produce the desired results. Is the country stuck in quicksand ?
One best solution to all Pakistan's woes is, voluntarily destroying all its nuclear weapons and declares itself Non-nuclear armed country. It may sound very harsh for Pakis, but given a deep thought about the root cause for their lingering problems, some may agree.
In simple terms inequality between country's economy and its weapons.
The US must pretend on a working relationship with Pakistan just until her assets in the terrorist sponsoring, nuclear proliferating state are strong enough to face off the enemy while her job in Afghanistan matures further to a point of significant troop withdrawls as anticipated. Then will the hammer fall....
Simple solution: Pakistan publicly requests and gets US affirmation of its nuclear status and a startegic umbrella that is available to Israel and Saudi Arabia - inturn Pakistani leaders with popular support cut-off all ties to Haqqani and Taiba networks - develop tribal areas and focus their energies on internal development. Sweet ending. Problem: Lack of Pakistani leadership.
One thing I admire about the American leaders is that they regularly sit down in events like this one and answer questions posed by the audience - takes some guts to take unknown questions that are not previously censored. I still recall Clinton taking questions from students at a Pakistani University --- I wonder whether any Pakistani big shot has the same guts?
Despite corrupt and sold out leadership, worst economic conditions, Pakistan has guts to give USA policy makers a tough time. Just Imagine, what happens if true and loyal leadership takes over pakistan standing on solid economic legs... oops worst case scenario for USA. May be this is the reason for all this instability in Pakistan.