A relationship too vital to break
In my view, interests of Pakistan and the United State have great convergence.
Relations between Pakistan and the United States, particularly the current phase in which Washington and other capitals are engaged, at multiple levels, with a number of state and non-state elements need to be given a serious thought in both countries. The stakes in how the war in Afghanistan ends are too high.
The point is that a war that brought the US and Pakistan into a third strategic partnership may also cause disengagement. My argument is that if this happens, perhaps Pakistan will lose more than any other partner. The costs of losing American support might be far greater than any benefits we can expect.
Politics and diplomacy cannot be conducted through emotions and vague concepts, rather they should be guided by rational calculations of national interest and practical considerations of facts on the ground. One of our national dilemmas is the projection by our media of a besieged mentality — this is sustained by a paranoid mindset, prevalent among many sections of Pakistani society. This has created a mindset among Pakistanis that the world is divided into two parts, one that is with us and the other that is against us. The paranoia I am referring to depicts even the best friends of Pakistan as ‘adversaries’.
Many of the narratives on our relations with the United States and other western countries are also rooted in an irrational anti-western streak that looks at western powers essentially through the anti-colonial ideological prism. In a globalised world where most Asian countries, including our best friend China, greatly value connectivity with the western world our pseudo-nationalists think otherwise. Nothing can be more self-destructive than the argument that we don’t share interests with the western powers or that our relationship with them doesn’t work to benefit us.
Never can relations between any two countries be one-way traffic. In my view, interests of Pakistan and the United State have great convergence in a number of important areas. From Pakistan’s point of view, prominent among these interests are: Reconciliation and stability of Afghanistan, defeating militancy and extremism and, larger issues of development and national security.
Pakistan’s support to the United States to defeat insurgency in Afghanistan is equally crucial. More important will be Pakistan’s cooperation in reaching a workable and durable peace settlement with the Taliban. Severing relations with Pakistan at this stage may not help the US achieve its objectives either. Meanwhile, the fallout of breakup with the United State on Pakistan’s regional and international standing will be far too serious than the damage the United States might suffer. It will push Pakistan into isolation, perpetuate negative national images that have hurt us already and encourage extremist groups and parties against moderate, mainstream politicians and political parties.
This is not to argue that issues that have created problems between Islamabad and Washington are trivial or they don’t exist. They do, but they require more engagement and diplomacy with an open mind, rather than the attitude of a peevish old man. Terms of engagement are always subject to negations, but not the engagement itself.
Published in The Express Tribune, May 24th, 2011.
The point is that a war that brought the US and Pakistan into a third strategic partnership may also cause disengagement. My argument is that if this happens, perhaps Pakistan will lose more than any other partner. The costs of losing American support might be far greater than any benefits we can expect.
Politics and diplomacy cannot be conducted through emotions and vague concepts, rather they should be guided by rational calculations of national interest and practical considerations of facts on the ground. One of our national dilemmas is the projection by our media of a besieged mentality — this is sustained by a paranoid mindset, prevalent among many sections of Pakistani society. This has created a mindset among Pakistanis that the world is divided into two parts, one that is with us and the other that is against us. The paranoia I am referring to depicts even the best friends of Pakistan as ‘adversaries’.
Many of the narratives on our relations with the United States and other western countries are also rooted in an irrational anti-western streak that looks at western powers essentially through the anti-colonial ideological prism. In a globalised world where most Asian countries, including our best friend China, greatly value connectivity with the western world our pseudo-nationalists think otherwise. Nothing can be more self-destructive than the argument that we don’t share interests with the western powers or that our relationship with them doesn’t work to benefit us.
Never can relations between any two countries be one-way traffic. In my view, interests of Pakistan and the United State have great convergence in a number of important areas. From Pakistan’s point of view, prominent among these interests are: Reconciliation and stability of Afghanistan, defeating militancy and extremism and, larger issues of development and national security.
Pakistan’s support to the United States to defeat insurgency in Afghanistan is equally crucial. More important will be Pakistan’s cooperation in reaching a workable and durable peace settlement with the Taliban. Severing relations with Pakistan at this stage may not help the US achieve its objectives either. Meanwhile, the fallout of breakup with the United State on Pakistan’s regional and international standing will be far too serious than the damage the United States might suffer. It will push Pakistan into isolation, perpetuate negative national images that have hurt us already and encourage extremist groups and parties against moderate, mainstream politicians and political parties.
This is not to argue that issues that have created problems between Islamabad and Washington are trivial or they don’t exist. They do, but they require more engagement and diplomacy with an open mind, rather than the attitude of a peevish old man. Terms of engagement are always subject to negations, but not the engagement itself.
Published in The Express Tribune, May 24th, 2011.