Can we end our doublespeak on America?
Pakistan’s civil-military elite want to drum up anti-Americanism and yet want a partnership with the world power.
The writer is a policy analyst, consulting editor for The Friday Times and hosts a show on Capital TV. He tweets @razarumi
Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s visit to the US marks a new phase in the stormy bilateral relationship between the two ‘frenemies’. The two countries, notwithstanding the asymmetrical power relationship, are bound by the regional imbroglio. The US has to exit its misadventure in Afghanistan and Pakistan can facilitate that. Pakistan has been struggling with an economic meltdown and terrorism, and needs US assistance as well as a post-2014 solution that sorts out the Taliban question. Prime Minister Sharif’s tenure will be profoundly impacted by what happens in Afghanistan in the short-term.
The recent visit was as productive as it could have been given the recent history of mistrust, bitterness and lack of shared goals between Pakistan and the US. The meeting with President Obama focused on all key issues: from security to trade, energy and agriculture. Earlier, the US government released outstanding assistance via the Coalition Support Funds and a hefty $1.5 billion from the Kerry-Lugar-Berman aid package. After their meeting, Obama termed Pakistan as a strategic partner, which should quell the paranoia in some quarters that the US will walk away from Pakistan after 2014.
Despite the issues with US policy in the region and its highhandedness, Pakistan’s civil-military elite have a penchant for doublespeak. They want to drum up anti-Americanism at any given time to earn political brownie points and yet want assistance and long-term strategic partnership with the world power. The security establishment resents the potential Indo-US strategic axis (played out in the Balochistan insurgency they say) and often raises the fear of being denuclearised. This dangerous approach has led to a deep schism in the popular imagination.
The last decade was a period of missed opportunities. Pakistan could have sought even more international assistance to set its house in order. However, short-term goals prevailed. It was vital that the Afghan Taliban and some of their groups operating from Fata were not abandoned to ensure that there was a formidable check to Indian ambitions in the region. This strategic calculation has backfired. It led to the hyped accusation of ‘double-game’, fostered further militancy and terrorism as the Afghan Taliban supported the growth of Pakistani factions of the Taliban. After the Nato drawdown, the future of Afghanistan and by implication, that of Pakistan, remains even more uncertain.
Nothing illustrates our predicament better than the contested drone strikes, which have now generated global debate. Earlier, a report by the United Nations made it clear that Pakistan’s policymakers had sanctioned these strikes even if that was unwritten or tacit. The latest report published in Washington Post says that “top officials in Pakistan’s government have for years secretly endorsed the [drone] program and routinely received classified briefings on strikes and casualty counts.” (“Secret memos reveal explicit nature of US, Pakistan agreement on drones”, WP, October 23, 2013).
Admittedly, the source of WP’s story is based on “top-secret CIA documents and Pakistani diplomatic memos” but it does put into question the kind of policy we have pursued. At least 65 strikes, according to the story, were carried out with the knowledge of the Pakistan authorities. Our Foreign Office’s response has been that whatever the past policy was, these strikes should end. Having said that, Prime Minister Sharif’s response to the recent report published by Amnesty International has been that the drone strikes do not constitute war crimes.
During his visit, the prime minister was unequivocal about his desire to make a fresh start. However, resetting the relationship would require fixing the domestic variables. Foremost is to recalibrate the policy towards the US via the revised National Security Council which the prime minister heads. It is true that the military is in charge of the fighting in Pakistan’s northwest but the state must come clean on what we expect from the US, what we ask for in private and why do we have to generate and breed multiple narratives that spill into the media and popular imagination, fueling hatred for the US. There are nearly 800,000 Pakistanis in the US and their contributions (remittances just to name one) must not be overlooked, while the zealots prepare to bomb and former diplomats remind the US of Pakistan’s nuclear prowess.
The second imperative pertains to Afghanistan. If we are obsessed about containing India, then there ought to be many other options than just fielding violent groups, which are now linked to those attacking the Pakistani state and citizens. Third, isolationism is next to impossible in today’s world. Pakistan, as Prime Minister Sharif said, needs markets, investment and more trade. This can only be achieved if we keep our economic interests above emotionalism and chanting the mantra of the US ‘ditching’ us at various moments of national history. Perhaps, this is an opportunity for him to end our practice of nurturing a rabid anti-American mindset to gain short-term leverage. It only hampers the longer-term economic and security interests of Pakistan.
Published in The Express Tribune, October 28th, 2013.
The recent visit was as productive as it could have been given the recent history of mistrust, bitterness and lack of shared goals between Pakistan and the US. The meeting with President Obama focused on all key issues: from security to trade, energy and agriculture. Earlier, the US government released outstanding assistance via the Coalition Support Funds and a hefty $1.5 billion from the Kerry-Lugar-Berman aid package. After their meeting, Obama termed Pakistan as a strategic partner, which should quell the paranoia in some quarters that the US will walk away from Pakistan after 2014.
Despite the issues with US policy in the region and its highhandedness, Pakistan’s civil-military elite have a penchant for doublespeak. They want to drum up anti-Americanism at any given time to earn political brownie points and yet want assistance and long-term strategic partnership with the world power. The security establishment resents the potential Indo-US strategic axis (played out in the Balochistan insurgency they say) and often raises the fear of being denuclearised. This dangerous approach has led to a deep schism in the popular imagination.
The last decade was a period of missed opportunities. Pakistan could have sought even more international assistance to set its house in order. However, short-term goals prevailed. It was vital that the Afghan Taliban and some of their groups operating from Fata were not abandoned to ensure that there was a formidable check to Indian ambitions in the region. This strategic calculation has backfired. It led to the hyped accusation of ‘double-game’, fostered further militancy and terrorism as the Afghan Taliban supported the growth of Pakistani factions of the Taliban. After the Nato drawdown, the future of Afghanistan and by implication, that of Pakistan, remains even more uncertain.
Nothing illustrates our predicament better than the contested drone strikes, which have now generated global debate. Earlier, a report by the United Nations made it clear that Pakistan’s policymakers had sanctioned these strikes even if that was unwritten or tacit. The latest report published in Washington Post says that “top officials in Pakistan’s government have for years secretly endorsed the [drone] program and routinely received classified briefings on strikes and casualty counts.” (“Secret memos reveal explicit nature of US, Pakistan agreement on drones”, WP, October 23, 2013).
Admittedly, the source of WP’s story is based on “top-secret CIA documents and Pakistani diplomatic memos” but it does put into question the kind of policy we have pursued. At least 65 strikes, according to the story, were carried out with the knowledge of the Pakistan authorities. Our Foreign Office’s response has been that whatever the past policy was, these strikes should end. Having said that, Prime Minister Sharif’s response to the recent report published by Amnesty International has been that the drone strikes do not constitute war crimes.
During his visit, the prime minister was unequivocal about his desire to make a fresh start. However, resetting the relationship would require fixing the domestic variables. Foremost is to recalibrate the policy towards the US via the revised National Security Council which the prime minister heads. It is true that the military is in charge of the fighting in Pakistan’s northwest but the state must come clean on what we expect from the US, what we ask for in private and why do we have to generate and breed multiple narratives that spill into the media and popular imagination, fueling hatred for the US. There are nearly 800,000 Pakistanis in the US and their contributions (remittances just to name one) must not be overlooked, while the zealots prepare to bomb and former diplomats remind the US of Pakistan’s nuclear prowess.
The second imperative pertains to Afghanistan. If we are obsessed about containing India, then there ought to be many other options than just fielding violent groups, which are now linked to those attacking the Pakistani state and citizens. Third, isolationism is next to impossible in today’s world. Pakistan, as Prime Minister Sharif said, needs markets, investment and more trade. This can only be achieved if we keep our economic interests above emotionalism and chanting the mantra of the US ‘ditching’ us at various moments of national history. Perhaps, this is an opportunity for him to end our practice of nurturing a rabid anti-American mindset to gain short-term leverage. It only hampers the longer-term economic and security interests of Pakistan.
Published in The Express Tribune, October 28th, 2013.