There were two notable takeaways from the entire visit. The first is that Kerry and his Pakistani interlocutors are really serious about restarting the strategic dialogue, which has been suspended for two years.
This is undoubtedly a good thing. Washington has few strategic relationships — wide-ranging, foolproof partnerships overflowing with so much trust that intelligence-sharing is taken for granted. Those relationships that do exist (the US-Israel and US-UK interactions) can easily withstand any bilateral bumps.
The US-Pakistan relationship, by contrast, is not blessed with a large reservoir of goodwill to weather crises. Cursed with unrealistic expectations, divergent interests and mutual mistrust, US-Pakistan relations are volatile at best and dysfunctional at worst. It wouldn’t take much to bring a resurrected strategic dialogue to a screeching halt.
This isn’t to say the strategic dialogue isn’t worth restarting; both nations are certainly better off with a deeper relationship. It would be folly for Washington to take lightly a nation that a) controls critical supply routes to and from Afghanistan b) exerts influence over the Afghan Taliban and c) in the long-term, is one of the world’s most youthful, populous and strategically placed countries. Likewise, it would be silly for Pakistan to shrug off a superpower that provides so many essential things — from export markets to economic assistance to military hardware.
But, realistically speaking, how seriously can we take a strategic dialogue involving two nations that arguably share only one major strategic interest — stability in Pakistan — but differ wildly on how to achieve it?
This brings me to the second key takeaway of Kerry’s whirlwind visit: the conciliatory comments on, of all things, drones. The secretary of state stunned the world by saying in a PTV interview that,“I think the [drone] programme will end as we have eliminated most of the threat … I think the president has a very real timeline and we hope it’s going to be very, very soon.”
So does this mean a huge source of bilateral tensions is poised to disappear? Well, yes, if Kerry’s statement were actually true. In reality, it is most assuredly not true at all. Unless, by “very, very soon”, Kerry meant after 2014.
Washington won’t soon end what is regarded by it today as the most effective option to eliminate Pakistan-based militants who attack US troops in Afghanistan — as well as civilian, government and military targets in Pakistan.
Perhaps, with his comments, Kerry was simply looking for ways to keep alive the warming trend in US-Pakistan relations — particularly as both sides look ahead to a visit Nawaz Sharif will apparently be making to Washington, later this year.
Overall, what strikes me the most about Kerry’s visit is how much it was a reflection of the bilateral relationship on the whole. It was volatile (how many high-level bilateral visits are rescheduled twice?), opaque (strikingly little emerged about what was actually discussed) and a bit melodramatic (the trip being billed as “unannounced” is a bit much, given that numerous media outlets had reported it several days in advance).
So was it a successful visit? Sure. Will it lead to greater things? Stay tuned — we might want to keep our expectations in check.
Published in The Express Tribune, August 7th, 2013.
Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.
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
@Linchpin:
(1)So what Afghanistan needs a route though Pakistan? Nepal and Bhutan need too though India. Mongolia though China, Switzerland through rest of Europe - in fact every single land-locked country needs a route through another to access ports - that's a no-brainer - but I never hear of others chest-thumping their "strategic location". (2) Central ASia, ME and Asia mergers into West Himalayas - so what? Central Asia seems to be doing pretty well with itself and working with Russia - last thing it needs are Pakistani jihadi influence!!. (3) ME is happy with all it's oil, it treats Pakistanis like dirt - go to Arabia and see for yourself! (4) and Asia is booming - why should it associate with basket case, failing nation Pakistan????
@Anjaan it is(was) not to contain India, but instead it was to contain China. However with Pakistan turning into China's slave in recent times, US/UK and basically everyone have switched to India. If Pakistan had not been a strategic partner to US to fight against USSR occupation in Afghanistan, today Pakistan would not have had any nuclear weapons or it would have been totally destroyed by America.
@truthbetold: 1) Yes because after 2014 Afghanistan will not only be self sufficient in everything it will simply stop all import export. This route has always been important. 2) The Taliban have influence in Pushtun areas of Afghanistan whether Pakistan wields influence or not. And of course they are heading straight for Kandahar post 2014. 3) Strategic importance - if the geography is such that the ME, Central Asia and South Asia all meet at shores, hills or the plains of the country - you so badly wish it would just disappear.
............ Centre for Scholars? For news reporters, more likely, judging from the contents of this writeup. Strategic dialogue. What could be the top three items the US is looking for from Pakistan? What could be the top three items Pakistan would require from the US? Are these likely to be even remotely compatible? Drones. Would the drones withdraw if Pakistan remains an expanding breeding ground for Al Qaida adherents? Or provides rent-free accommodation for OBL's successors? Strategic location. Has Pakistan's location changed recently? After sixty years and more relations are still undefinable. Stability in Pakistan. What is the 'wild' disagreement about, regarding methods? What method does the US advocate for achieving stability? Does Pakistan agree it is not stable? Yup! Lots of substance, lots of scholarship! Mercifully, it is brief.
The relationship could get a lot better if America stopped providing Aid of any type, civilian or military. That way there would be no expectations of buying Pakistani loyalty and therefore no resentment. Pakistan would figure out how to balance its books without doles of any kind, a necessity to regain self confidence. It would also learn to appreciate that simply being an enemy's enemy, does not make a good friend.
Every nation is driven by its national interests while dealing with other country. Here American interests will be short lived while Pakistan's interest lies for longer term. Pakistan will try to maximize of its benefit in the short term while keeping an eye on long term relations. Visit of John Kerry( eagerly awaited) was definitely important from the Pakistani point of view as expectations were little more while Americans too wanted to break the ice. Successful is a term which is directly proportional to the perceived expectations. Conclusions can therefore be drawn accordingly.
"Washington won’t soon end what is regarded by it today as the most effective option to eliminate Pakistan-based militants who attack US troops in Afghanistan — as well as civilian, government and military targets in Pakistan." This is all that one needs to know about Kerry's trip. Who on earth would want to stop drone attacks against the fanatic terrorists who attack US troops, civil and military targets in Pakistan including women and children?
You give the above points why US should have strategic dialogue with Pakistan!!
a) controls critical supply routes to and from Afghanistan = becomes a non-issue once US withdraws. It has achieved what it wanted. Kill Osama, and throw out the Taliban from Kabul.
b)exerts influence over the Afghan Taliban = this is typical "gun on my own head" cry of Pakistan - it has nothing with nuisance "pain" value, nothing positive to offer the US here
c) one of the world’s most youthful, populous and strategically placed countries. = youthful- thats the worry, as they are all attending madrassas and turning extremists. Population = a basket case - more poverty, illegal immigration and violence for sure. "strategic location" = you guys have been talking ad-nauseum of Pakistan's so-called "strategic location" - not a penny has come out of it - just billions of dollars of aid down the drain....
" It would be folly for Washington to take lightly a nation that a) controls critical supply routes to and from Afghanistan b) exerts influence over the Afghan Taliban and c) in the long-term, is one of the world’s most youthful, populous and strategically placed countries."
a) The supply routes will no longer be needed after 2014.
b) Glad you admit Afghan Taliban are Pakistan's proxies. But, it doesn't mean a hill of beans to the Americans after 2014. Pakistan's "influence" on the Haqqani terrorists will only boomerang on Pakistan. The Americans came to Afghanistan to take revenge for 9/11 and kill Osama bin Laden. That mission is now accomplished.
c) The population, youth and "strategic" location "advantages" are only in the imagination of Pakistanis.
''Very very soon'' has upset sweet sleeps of many who have no agenda for people but drone politics to remain in.Thank you.
American foreign interventionist policies resemble the provebial ' bull in a china shop '. Once everything is broken it looks for the door and have you ever tried to tell a bull that there is such a thing called being reponsible..........good luck to the guy who tries.
A drone a day keeps a terrorist away. Kerry with his charismatic personality tried to convince Pakistan that USA needs an Afghanistan bail out and Pakistan needs an IMF bail out