Pakistan has had many spats with the US, but US Special Envoy Mark Grossman’s meetings with the country’s leadership last week was another reminder of how concern about domestic fallouts has come to impinge on decision-making in both countries, even on foreign policy issues.
Though our relationship with the US is replete with episodes of breakdowns, none has agitated our people with greater anguish than the Salala tragedy. Developments thereafter confirmed that the euphoria associated with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s claim of a “strategic partnership” proved as short-lived and inconsequential, as spring snow in Washington. Moreover, fearing a crescendo in anti-American sentiments, the government acquiesced to demands that parliament undertake a review of relations with the US. Not only did the process proceed at a desultory pace; the government did nothing to restrain those who sought to whip up popular passions in the guise of national honour and dignity. In the process, the government may have scored a few brownie points, but today finds itself in the straitjacket imposed by the parliamentary resolution. The US response was not exemplary either, for fearing a backlash from the Republicans, US President Barack Obama has been hesitant to offer an apology which, had it been tendered in the immediate aftermath of the tragedy, would have done much to assuage hurt feelings here.
Though Grossman tried to remain upbeat, highlighting US priority in the reopening of Nato supply routes while offering release of our Coalition Support Fund claims, the impression of a stalemate was confirmed by US officials to the New York Times, especially on the issue of ‘apology’ and drone attacks. The American position reportedly stiffened on suspicion that the April 15 attacks on Kabul had been carried out by the Haqqani network, which is suspected of having ties with Pakistani intelligence agencies.
The continuing mistrust and resultant crisis in Pakistan-US relations can help neither country, nor promote the cause of peace in Afghanistan, especially at a time when the Afghan endgame necessitates greater coordination and enhanced understanding between the two countries.
The US would do well to recognise that Pakistan’s demand for an apology is justified and should be acceded to expeditiously. So, too, should it show understanding for Pakistan’s serious reservations about drone attacks, instead of refusing “to listen”, as Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani Khar has complained. Of course, Pakistan has to remain engaged, to either convince the US as to why the drone attacks are now no longer permissible or to come clean and tell the people when, why and under what circumstances we had agreed to these operations. For the US, the reopening of the Nato supply routes is critical and surely an understanding can be reached if the US were to give an assurance that only non-lethal goods would be transported. The US can also make it more palatable by agreeing to random inspection and paying for damage to the highways and road system. With regard to the Haqqani network, it is true that neither the US nor Nato allies can afford to ignore brazen and well-coordinated attacks on Afghan cities, which may not have inflicted heavy casualties but did become a source of major embarrassment. The US cannot, however, ask Pakistan to launch attacks on the Haqqani network, while itself engaging the Taliban in a dialogue.
Political turmoil and increasing uncertainty at home are likely to adversely impact our ability to focus on critical foreign policy issues. This must not, however, weaken our resolve to conclude speedily and on a mutually satisfactory basis, the resetting of our relations with the US. The overriding objective should be to renegotiate a more sustainable relationship, one that recognises the capacities and limitations of the partnership. Stalemate is not an option for either!
Published in The Express Tribune, May 2nd, 2012.
COMMENTS (14)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
Just the negotiation b/t USA and Pakistan started ,and there is another drone attack.and the American advisor to national security and anti terrorism , Mr Brenan has come out with another assurance that the drone attacks are the legal and the completely in agreement with the international law.When America broke the sovereignty of another state, no matter pakistan is an ally and getting aid from it, how the drones attack could become legal and where is the Geneva convention.
Pakistan is getting 1.5 billion annually from America as a civilian aid.This is not the amount ,without this Pakistan becomes bankrupt immediately as some prophet of dooms predicting.
Pakistan should cut off ties with US. and US with Pakistan. trade relations should be reviewed. paksiatn should now do its garment exports to its all-weather friend China and not to US who for some ridiculous reason is among the largest if not the largest trading partner of Pakistan. Pakistan should stop taking aid from the US - whether that is for national security purposes or on humanitarian grounds. Do this and the US will collapse like USSR did.
...."to whom the gods want to destroy, they first make mad "
Seems I have not been keeping up. I was under the impression PAK had all the cards in the deal. What happened? The US was supposed to do everything PAK demanded.
Here you go : "http://tribune.com.pk/story/372940/us-goal-in-afghanistan-now-within-reach-obama/"
the justification for early withdrawal has started. For all you now the Chicago conference may determine that they want to withdraw in early 2012 instead of waiting until 2014. If Pakistan does not reach an agreement now on current offered terms (more money for supply routes without stoppage of drones or apology), soon even that may no longer be of offer.
@Shahid: Very well put Shahid. To add to what you said. There are other consequences to what it would mean for Pakistan if US were to unilaterally withdraw from Pakistan and it is not just economic impact. What would happen to spare-part supply for Pakistan'sr F-16s and its US supplied tanks? It will also be increasingly difficult for Pak politicians to justify power-cuts which occur not due to scarcity of supply but because of fiscal incapacity to pay for electricity produced and to import gas and oil to produce it. Development expenditures have also continued to decrease (education is down to 1.5% of GDP) and there is a floor of 0% below which that cannot be reduced. At that time miltary spending will HAVE to be reduced.
The consequence of early withdrawal for US on the other hand are not as bad as Pakistanis think. There is obvious economic advantage of not spending hundreds of billions in this war. Currently a majority of US public wants US out now that the goal of killing Osama has been achieved, so there is a way for US politicians to put a positive spin on this. If you notice articles have already started appearing in US press stating how Al Qaeda has been fatally degraded post Bin Laden killing.
@Author: "The US would do well to recognise that Pakistan’s demand for an apology is justified and should be acceded to expeditiously. So, too, should it show understanding for Pakistan’s serious reservations about drone attacks, instead of refusing “to listen”, as Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani Khar has complained."
You are saying that status quo is not tenable and US should apologize and stop drone attacks in lieu of opening of supply routes. US has already determined that this is not an acceptable trade-off. Yes they are willing to pay more to have supply routes open but are unwilling to accept the conditions outlined by Pakistan. So clearly status quo (closed supply routes) maybe undesirable for US but IS acceptable to them. It is Pakistan who has painted itself in the corner. IT cannot live without US security aid (in short term) and US spare-parts for its army and air-force equipment (in medium term). It however does not know how to reopen the supply lines when US has clearly rejected their conditions to do so.
If you want to resolve the impediments in US-Pak relation ,Author should advise what Pakistan needs to do -not what other party should do, as they have their own axe to grind.
"For the US, the reopening of the Nato supply routes is critical and surely an understanding can be reached if the US were to give an assurance that only non-lethal goods would be transported." Tell it to DPC If your route was critical, there would be problems occurring in regard to it as is. Pakistan is more trouble than it's worth. Most Americans would probably consent to a tax increases to cut Pakistan out of the picture completely.
Pakistan supply rout is not vital for Us as they have survived without it for four months.Has anyone ever considerd what would happen to pakistan if USA decides to withdraw from Afghanistan abruptly and unilateraly. those wishing to rub USA's nose in shape of Apology demand should realise that USA is a super power and there are diplomatic ettiquetes to deal with super powers. Just like you don't ask a king to publicly aplogise you don't ask a super power to apologise. we want to satisfy our misplaced ego even on the cost of country's interest. Pakistan cannot even survive if USA and its allies pull its economic support for the country. Inciting antiamerican feelings will harm the country very badly.Are we really ready to survive on grass and go back to stone age. This is a question we should ask us ten times before demanding an apology.
"....suspected of having ties with our intelligence agencies".
Does no one really know if they do?
The continuing mistrust and resultant crisis in Pakistan-US relations can help neither country, I should Pakistan should worry about what's good for Pakistan. USA knows what's good for USA and acts accordingly and does not need gratuitous advice , that too from a party , whom it bellieves to be dishonest and duplicitous.
The US would not have to talk to the Taliban if they were not sheltered by the Pak state and let loose (along with the Haqqanis) on civilian targets in Afghanistan - and this desperate measure (of talking to the Taliban) is proof of the quiet acquiescence that the war is unwinnable. While Pakistanis rush to break out the bubbly to celebrate this pyrrhic victory, they should realize that they are burning their bridges with their former allies at breakneck speed - with the end of the war, the US is likely to drop pretenses and exact vengeance for the humiliation and perceived betrayal by the 'closest non-NATO ally'. Tomorrow the Taliban may control parts of Afghanistan and have a fluid standoff with the Afghan army (assuming that NATO continues to support the ANA) in others, but there will be no advantage for Pakistan. It would have been more advisable to help the Afghans find a via-media and extract financial benefits (that you desperately need) in return.
An excellent multi-dimensional view given by one who understands the dynamics involved. As a layman observer I see that like all else, it is easy to mess up international relations and damn hard to set it right again.