Obama on Pakistan

Public statements made by US President Barack Obama on Pakistan need to be evaluated so that the government doesn’t divert us from the harsh realities of how Pakistan is viewed and treated. There is constant pressure on Islamabad to take a tough stand on militancy. Obama said during a presidential debate: “If the US has al Qaeda, bin Laden, top-level lieutenants in our sights and Pakistan is unable or unwilling to act, we should take them out.” When asked if India has the same right to attack Pakistan if it had actionable intelligence, Obama replied: “I think that sovereign nations have the right to protect themselves”. Based on these statements, interference by both the US and India should not come as surprise. In his speech at West Point, New York Obama made it clear that the days of blank cheques were over and the US would multiply its covert presence despite Pakistani backlash and resentment.

Obama’s statements on Kashmir are equally important. As far back as November 2008 he suggested that the US should help resolve the Kashmir dispute so that Pakistan can focus on hunting down militants. He said he would send a “Special Envoy on Kashmir” which never happened. In his article in Foreign Affairs in 2007 he wrote: “If Pakistan can look towards India with confidence, it will be less likely to believe that its interests are best advanced through cooperation with the Taliban.’’ This logic is bound to result in little progress on condemning Indian human rights violations in Indian-Administered Kashmir.

Obama also said: “The civilian government is very fragile and doesn’t seem to have the capacity to deliver basic services...it’s difficult for them to gain the loyalty of their people.” This has weakened our government’s credibility and its relevance to US policies. And frankly, Obama’s envoys like Holbrooke have done him no service by openly defending the corruption of leaders of both Afghanistan and Pakistan.

There is recognition of Pakistan’s improved nuclear security regime. However, it is clear that there is a possibility that terrorists can access our nukes and this undermines any equitable AfPak approach. “We know that extremists seek nuclear weapons. We want to respect their sovereignty but we have huge strategic interests in making sure that Pakistan is stable and doesn’t end up a nuclear-armed militant state.”

Nearly one year after the heated debate over the signing away of our sovereignty through the Kerry-Lugar Bill, the government has neither received a significant proportion of the funds nor has been accorded a corruption free rating. Our international indicators on transparency, business competitiveness, media freedom and law and order are at a dismal low. And the tone of Obama’s public statements doesn’t treat Pakistan as a dignified ally in the war on terror. Recognition of exactly how low the graph has become is urgently required for us to regain our dignity.

Published in The Express Tribune, June 23^rd, 2010.