Pakistan has reason to like Kerry. He knows a lot about US foreign policy in general and about Pakistan in particular. PHOTO: AFP/FILE
Pakistan has reason to like him. In September this year, when Senator Rand Paul asked the US Senate to pass his amendment asking for all assistance to be cut off to Pakistan on the question of Dr Shakeel Afridi, Senator Kerry took him on, challenging his contention that Pakistan was not a friend of America and rebuked him for making his remarks without ever once having visited Pakistan. One sentence in particular was noted by the foreign policy enclave in Islamabad. Senator Kerry asked Rand Paul: “Pakistan is losing men fighting militants in northwestern part of the country and you want to cut off aid?” He informed the Senate that “US troops in Afghanistan get some supplies through the supply routes in Pakistan and that the US has been able to decimate the al Qaeda with Pakistan’s help”.
Earlier in 2011, President Barack Obama sent Senator Kerry to Pakistan to talk to the power centres of Pakistan to break the deadlock in Pakistan-US relations. He was to address the concerns of Army Chief General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani and ensure that “Pakistani anger over the US raid to kill Osama bin Laden in Abbottabad does not subvert security cooperation”. As his visit unfolded, the US press noted that “Pakistan is vital to US efforts to combat Islamist militants and to efforts to stabilise Afghanistan, where US forces depend on Pakistani supply lines for water, food, fuel and other essentials”.
The Pakistan-US equation dipped perilously after the Bin Laden killing. Pakistan’s Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee, General Khalid Shameem Wynne, cancelled a five-day visit to the US. Senator Kerry, thereafter, became a part of the diplomacy that led to the reopening of the Nato supply route in 2012. He was seen as a friend of Pakistan and was effective in moderating views on both sides of the quarrel till they were ready to place their relationship on a new footing. He continued to emphasise the Pakistani point of view while putting forward the concerns of the Obama Administration. Speaking a day after two suicide bombers killed 80 people at a Pakistani paramilitary academy, he said Pakistan was “a victim of extremism and faced its own tough decisions”.
He was in Islamabad again in May 2012 asking for a “reset” of Pakistan-US relations. The US was not yet sure about the option of offering apology for the Bin Laden incident but it was clear that Kerry’s diplomacy was unleashed to test the waters in Pakistan before flexibility was adopted on the issue. His 24-hour visit was meant to soothe Pakistani anger at not being informed about the raid because the US was keeping the situation in Afghanistan on top of its ‘endgame’ agenda. He gave the first signal for the positive developments that followed, climaxing in American acceptance of Pakistan’s concerns about post-withdrawal Afghanistan.
Now that some kind of dialogue between Kabul and the Taliban is in progress, Pakistan has to reassess its position and be ready to readjust to a post-withdrawal situation in its neighbourhood. At the people’s level, reflected in the national media, anti-Americanism is rampant but our ‘strategic enclave’ must also be vigilant over this hate wave becoming simply a label for isolationism. Pakistan’s economy is hurtling towards a crisis it may have not have faced before. Its relations at the global and regional level must reflect Pakistan’s need for support in facing up to the threat of terrorism now virtually beyond its control. Pakistan’s law-enforcement will be critical in the coming days and its personnel will need training that the international community is in a position to provide.
Published in The Express Tribune, December 26th, 2012.
COMMENTS (20)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
Pakistanis and the Muslims all over the world were happy when Obama was elected the first time. But Obama has been more tough on Pak than Bush. The same can be expected from Kerry.
If PAK thinks sec.Clinton had not been good for PAK, , then certainly Kerry is not going to be good for PAK.
To put it in a nut shell, Sec. Clinton relationship with PAK ruling elites and civil servants dates back to her time in college and her friendship with BB began even before BB entered politics. During her time in white house, she took time to understand PAK society and one can see her ease and honesty in her town hall meetings with PAK women and men.
Both Mr. and Mrs. Clinton always had sympathetic view of PAK and it was Mr. Clinton's intervention that saved the neck of Nawaz Sariff from Musharaff and PAK from Indian military during Kargil, economic fiasco when pak tested the nukes.
Senator. Kerry imay be close to the government agencies of PAK and may be sympathetic to pak but he is not going to show nepotism since his contacts with pak is at senatorial level career and the roots of his affection for PAK is not as deep as Sec. Clinton.
Kerry is going to be tough with PAK.
It is like having to choose between death and jojo.
John Kerry is necessarily bound to follow set US policy on Pakistan and would not be able to bail out the country for its future acts of omission and commission to avoid criticism from people and Republicans.
Whilst the US is in Pakistan/Afghanistan the problems facing Pakistan are insurmountable, and can never be solved. The US/NATO have a different agenda, which includes world economic resources and hegemony When the US/NATO get out, and allow Pakistan to make its own decisions, it will be tough for a while, but will benefit Pakistan in the long run.
Kerry's knowledge of Pakistan is probably the best you can expect from an American politician - I suspect the question is whether someone with a greater understanding of Pakistan is more inclined to be friendly? Many would argue no.
there should be no illusion . American interest has the highest priorities for Senator Kerry too. and there is no reason to believe that their interest / policy towards Pakistan has undergone a change..The difference will be reflected only in the approach ( to achieve).
John Kerry is no different than Hilary Clinton in his ability to think thru a problem. But, Hilary could be more blunt where as Kerry is more of a fibber. They both know where the problem lies.
But, they'll all do the same thing - Appease Pakistan Army to get their work done. A short sighted approach that had earlier in 80s allowed Pakistan to develop its clandestine nuclear program, where their regan administration kept giving clean chit to Pakistan in hope of getting help in Afghanistan - which later had a huge blowback - that resulted in 9/11.
USA administration will be foolish to think it can appease Pakistan Army for long and change its core behavior. It's best policy should be to withdraw men from region ASAP, and try control Pakistan's behavior through economic means and other multi-lateral tools.
Mr. Obama is no fool. He'd want Kerry/Clinton to humor Pakistan to get US withdrawal done, tighten screws later.
@Haany, F.:
"Sen. Kerry needs to understand that Pakistani intelligentsia and people in power corridors are friends of American people in general and expect similar treatment and attitude in return, rather than of a master dictating commands. The sooner he recognizes this fact, the better it would be for both the countries."
If you think deeply and honestly, Pakistan's relationship with the US has always been a transactional one. That is has been so is not the fault of the Americans. The Pakistani establishment that enriched itself from American largesse is solely to be blamed. Kerry is from the old school of buying cooperation with free American dollars and being enablers for the Pak establishment to punch above its weight.
Pakistan (read the establishment) needs a very significant course change to take the country to become a respected progressive nation. That is not going to happen if Kerry goes back to the old soft carrot policy. He will further enable bad behavior of the Pak establishment. As bad it might have looked, when Bush laid down his dictum for Musharraf "either you are with us or against us....we will bomb you to stone age", it took only one minute for Mush to abandon the Taliban. The truth is that only power and threat of overwhelming force will convince Pak establishment to change its current disastrous course.
So, what is good for Pakistan? An enabling Kerry or a strong voice (stick) that gets the Pak establishment to stop punching about its weight and change its Islamist and nuke games?
@BlackJack: Any decision on drones would me in the purview of Secretary of Defense rather than Secretary of State. I doubt that Kerry could influence this is any significant way. Also despite all public statements on this issue, it does not look like this is an important ask from Pakistan. What Pakistan needs badly and Kerry will facilitate is one more IMF loan.
John Kerry is only and only the change of face and behind his face the US' policies for Pakistan are always the same and unchangeable.So by the appointment of John Kerry Pakistani leaders even should never think it that the US' policies shall change or Pakistan shall see any flexibility in US' policies for Pakistan most especially importantly policy regarding brutal,cruel and barbaric drones' strikes on the tribal areas of Pakistan to kill the innocent and sinless people.....
Every US' official not only John Kerry is good even much the best for Pakistan who always backups and supports US' aid for Pakistan in any forms and manifestations no matter what the price Pakistan is going to pay for aid.....
Girl friends change when they become wives.
Sen. Kerry needs to understand that Pakistani intelligentsia and people in power corridors are friends of American people in general and expect similar treatment and attitude in return, rather than of a master dictating commands. The sooner he recognizes this fact, the better it would be for both the countries.
I fail to understand the question. Is the writer implying that Hillary Clinton was unfair in her handling of Pakistan? Or that Pakistan (as always) needs special treatment, and the new SoS is more likely to lean that way than his predecessor. If it is the latter, then these expectations are likely to be misplaced. One area where Pakistan may obtain succor is in a possible reduction in drone strikes - given Sen. Kerry's strong record of targeting war crimes and its perpetrators within the US, he may find supporting drone strikes unpalatable.
@Truth detector: How correct . The very notion that a civil servant working 10,000 miles away can majorly affect a country of 180 million is humiliating and insulting for Pakistan
The one & only question that needs to be asked, pondered & answered is whether Pakistani leaders are good for Pakistan or not ? Nothing else has & will ever matter most. We should do away with this obsessive discussion topic of which foreign leader ( especially American) is good for Pakistan or not.
If I was US SOS, I would also say nice things to make Pakistani's happy and make them feel secure about dealing with me. You need to first win over before getting the desired changes from the other in tid-bits.