It is, perhaps, wrong to revise history and dump the Republicans because they have been supporting Pakistani dictators at the cost of Pakistan’s democratic institutions. This thinking presumes that if the US had not helped Pakistan against India, Pakistan’s democracy would have flourished. This distorts the established understanding of Pakistan as a state. What actually happened during the Republican administrations was the meeting of two pragmatisms.
The default description of the history of Pakistan-US relations is that Republicans have gone along with Pakistan’s prickly India-centric foreign policy better than the Democrats. The US practises what is called a ‘realistic’ foreign policy emblematised by the slogan ‘there are no permanent friends or enemies’. When Prime Minister Liaquat Ali Khan first visited the US — as Pakistan’s first act of realism after 1947 — he was put off when this motto was pronounced to him. Pakistan never made an intellectual effort to understand the US as a ‘friend’.
American realism is explained by Francis Fukuyama in his book After the Neocons: America at the Crossroads (2007) as “four approaches”: 1) Realism in the tradition of Henry Kissinger that respects power and tends to downplay the internal nature of other regimes and human rights concerns; 2) liberal internationalism that transcends power politics altogether and moves to an international order based on law and institutions; 3) Jacksonian American nationalism that tends to take a narrow, security-related view of American national interests, distrusts multilateralism and tends towards nativism and isolationism in its more extreme manifestation.
Fukuyama gives the following definition to the fourth school of thought: 4) Neoconservatism, which speaks from a moral platform and justifies pre-emption, regime change, unilateralism and benevolent hegemony in foreign policy (p.7).
Pakistan benefited under Reagan and Bush (Republican) and is suffering under President Obama (Democrat) as the Americans make ready to leave Afghanistan. The pattern is historical: Republicans expand; the Democrats contract after an imperial overstretch. Both President Obama and Romney agree that Pakistan cannot be abandoned to its own devices because of the collapse of its internal sovereignty and endangered possession of nuclear weapons. They both favour the use of drones to mellow Pakistan’s honour-based temperament dangerously inclined to favouring Taliban.
Pakistan will find neither the Republicans nor the Democrats loving it too much in these post-Cold War days of tight money. In Washington’s strategy, the generals of the Pentagon have a bigger profile because of the conditions of war on terrorism. This is one reason America’s Pakistan policy will be more bipartisan than in the past. Pakistan, therefore, can hardly choose between the two parties.
Pakistan is up on its hind legs because of its timocracy (rule of honour) but its economy is hurtling downwards. Its foreign policy is unrealistic, based on hurt pride and a passion for revenge. Its policy on Raymond Davis, Osama bin Laden’s death, Ambassador Husain Haqqani and Dr Shakeel Afridi was unrealistic.
Pakistan cannot articulate its foreign policy logically because of its near total incapacity to preserve internal sovereignty. The extremism of its society has brought it close to the identity of the terrorists it doesn’t want to fight.
Published in The Express Tribune, November 4th, 2012.
COMMENTS (16)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
Yet another op-ed to give Indian trolls a field day.
Pakistan has historically prospered off of the conflicts between the USA/China/Soviets/India -- but those days are over. The same powers that Pakistan used to use to lever to obtain funding/favors now agree that Islamic extremism is their greatest threat and view Pakistan as responsible for much of that extremism. Arguably the USA, China, Russia and even India are now economically dependent on each other and are more friendly to each other than to Pakistan - something that must make "the establishment" nervous.
I read daily ten to twelve newspapers but I cannot trust any American newspaper, therefore I read American news from other sources. After American big lie, ‘Iraq’s weapon of mass destruction’ and small lie, ‘war against terrorism’, I think no one in the world can take anything from America seriously. America is facing ‘trust deficit’ and as time will pass they face this issue more and more so don’t waste our time and let American enjoy what they want.
@the Skunk: He cant tread there, that could be blasphemous!
An excellent piece of writing.
The plenty of signs which are coming out of Pakistan, indicate that the country has already resigned to a culture of talibanism, though presently it is in transition state. Another 10 years and the matters will be more pronounced.
I am not seeing any indication that there is a process / system being developed to arrest this unfortunately.
This is the biggest worry of the neighbors and the world at large
No more free lunches from USA & PK must stand on its own feets now & get rid of monsters created by their establishment.
The last three paragraphs say it all.
Looking inwards, we are tottering on the brink of bankruptcy, near failure to control terrorism because of 'feet of clay,' and money going into corruption. You have diagnosed the malady, what is your treatment?
Salams
A Republican or Democrat President will make no difference because Pakistan is so far gone that none can help it. The litany of complaints is long but what is clear is that appetite for misadventures is very low. Pakistan is facing a meltdown whichever perspective it is viewed from, what is alarming is that it is least interested in making any effort to halt the slide. Even the basic axiom "God helps those who help themselves" is forgotten. Wake up, there is no Messiah coming !
The extremism of its society has brought it close to the identity of the terrorists it doesn’t want to fight.
Right.
Pakistan needs to put its own house in order without concern about who wins in amreeks,sir.
'Pakistan cannot articulate its foreign policy logically because of its near total incapacity to preserve internal sovereignty. The extremism of its society has brought it close to the identity of the terrorists it doesn’t want to fight.*
That, that alone nails it. '
Sadly, Pakistan is not in a position to dictate terms and conditions in this relationship. Pakistan is being courted and the courtier itself. Also, Relationship / Bargain should always be negotiated from point of strength and not from point of weakness. Sadly, deliberately or otherwise, out of choice or compulsion, out of innocence or ignorance, Pakistan has been negotiating from the point of weakness.... and doing so still..... But is somebody reading this....
The op-ed is caught in a time warp, because America is now much more comfortable with India than it was during the Reagan or Bush Sr. administrations. During Bush Jr.s term, the WoT was a priority, but even then the direction of tilt became quite obvious with the US-India civilian nuclear deal in which the Bush govt called in a number of favors to give India a free pass. India is now seen as the most important market for military hardware and Republicans have traditionally pampered the armaments industry - anyone who has been listening to the presidential debates could not have missed Romney's interest in increasing arms sales to friendly nations; Pakistan may not qualify, either as friend or as target market - and not because of lack of demand, but inability to pay. Of course, if Obama wins, we will only see more of the same.
Imran khan will be good for Pakistan .. forget abt obama and romney ..
USA is running out of money. Pakistan , for the 1st time since 1947, will have to feed and fend for itself.