What's new

Divisions Persist.

Joined
May 7, 2012
Messages
20,487
Reaction score
182
Country
Pakistan
Location
United Kingdom
Moeed YusufJuly 30, 2019

“HE came, he saw, he conquered,” wrote US-based South Asia expert Michael Kugleman in his recent Dawn article on Prime Minister Imran Khan’s Washington sojourn. Perfectly put! One can have Democrat or Republican leanings in the US, PTI, PML-N, PPP or whatever in Pakistan, but if you are a champion of the Pakistan-US relationship in either country, you’ve got to admit that Khan’s trip was special.

In my last article before his visit, I had suggested that the Trump-Khan meeting will be the make or break. The relationship begged a shakeup and the two gents needed to click. And they did.

Interacting with both sides before the trip, I sensed nervousness. The Pakistani side knew the importance of the one-on-one between the leaders and had worked overtime to decipher President Donald Trump’s likes and dislikes. Still, they weren’t willing to wager any bets. The US system, on the other hand, was concerned about Trump going overboard in rolling out the red carpet for Khan, thereby sending, from the bureaucracy’s perspective, a terrible signal: bygones are bygones and the US is ready to mend fences because Pakistan matters.

The Pakistani side was all smiles after the White House interaction, but Khan’s visit has left Washington divided. Trump took the charm offensive route, creating a dilemma for his bureaucracy. The view within the system remains that Pakistan needs to be pressured to force greater cooperation on Afghanistan.

The divide throws up a couple of serious challenges.

Trump wants Pakistan to get him a peace deal.

First, the natural inclination of those favouring persistent pressure on Pakistan will be to try and walk back some of Trump’s conciliatory signalling. We’ve already seen statements from Washington indicating a more sceptical take on the trip than Trump’s overtures suggested. On the Pakistani side, this reality will likely lead to attempts to bypass the system and work directly with the US president and the pro-Pakistan voices who convinced him to invite Khan.

Neither will benefit the relationship. Too sceptical an approach by the US bureaucracy will deflate Pakistan’s incentive to push harder on Afghanistan to satisfy Trump, something I sense Pakistan is now keen to do. On the other hand, while what a US president wants matters, Washington ultimately derives its strength from its institutions. One can’t ignore the institutional processes; any such effort on Pakistan’s part will result in rearguard action by the bureaucracy that’ll stall the momentum this trip initiated.

Second, even if we begin to move in a positive direction, the long-standing disconnect between what the US wants from Pakistan and what Pakistan is willing to do has still to be worked out.

On this count, we may be worse off now than we were before the trip, since Trump’s understanding of the quid pro quo from Pakistan in return for his positive outreach is probably less nuanced than the US bureaucracy’s. His desire to get an agreement between the Afghan powerbrokers and the Afghan Taliban in time for his November 2020 re-election bid is well known. Everything he did last week tells me he feels Pakistan is his answer. He doesn’t want Pakistan to merely get the Taliban talking with President Ashraf Ghani, he wants Pakistan to get him a peace deal.

The problem is that Pakistan doesn’t have that kind of clout. But if it is unable to either manage or fulfil Trump’s expectations, he will begin to revert to his system’s sceptical view of Pakistan’s utility. We’d be back to square one.

So, it is crucial for Pakistan to try as hard as it can in Afghanistan: to help the US secure a satisfactory outcome, while simultaneously seeking the US system’s support to manage Trump’s expectations.

I’d be remiss if I didn’t mention that this trip wasn’t only about the Trump-Khan meeting after all. It also touched thousands of Pakistani diaspora in a special way. With nearly 20,000 Pakistani Americans packed in Washington’s Capital One Arena to hear Khan and Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi, this community event managed to give a true sense of belonging to our otherwise disparate and disjointed diaspora community.

Among the crowd were second-generation Pakistanis who have grown up shying away from owning up to their identity rather than cherishing their heritage. Such has been the negativity around Pakistan’s image in popular American imagination. Nonetheless, this generation has an essential role as ambassadors of the US-Pakistan relationship and both Washington and Islamabad must harness their potential. Khan has got the ball rolling in spectacular fashion. In fact, this may well have been his visit’s most lasting contribution.

For those of us who see the merits of a strong US-Pakistan relationship, Prime Minister Khan’s visit was a welcome development. It’s now time to build on the reset the Trump-Khan duo has achieved.

The writer is the author of Brokering Peace in Nuclear Environments: US Crisis Management in South Asia.

Published in Dawn, July 30th, 2019


In effect what the writer is saying is that the elected President and the 'system' are divided. The system [the establushment] views about Pakistan are not about to change easily as it has a very critical view of Pakistan. By the system he means bureaucrats and military officials or what might be called institutions.

Strange thing is that when this division is seen inside Pakistan between the elected and establishment. For instance the military having a differant perspective it is seen as bad or indication of malfunctioning state?

@VCheng @soloman
 
.
What this shows us is bureaucrats and military establishments in any country are NOT robots or drones who just do what is told to them by the elected government. There is institutional inertia and collewctively carries lot of weight and influence. This is something to be kept in mind next time questions are raised about the Pakistan Army retaining it's own perspective. As can be seen in USA the same factors exist.

The main differance is the US system makes sure that the elected President never deviates too far from the institutional memory. For instance there is no way a President would get elected in USA who was pro Palestine. If that happened there the gulf between elected and establishment would be so large that cracks would appear in the public and a open wrestling match would become all too visible.
 
.
u.s army and establishment is more mature institution than our army that is why it is not dependent on single person and mostly their army chief name is not much known to world or even their public but in Pakistan everytime we require to give extension to army chief and have fear that next coas will not be able to do same job properly .We should end dependency on individuals in institutions and instead develop institutions as a whole so policies remain consistent ,this can happen only through promotion of merit and transparency in institutions.U.s policy is not totally controlled by army , the jewish and neocons lobby and bankers who control u.s central bank and have influence on their institutions dictate their policies and actually u.s is controlled by israel, both trump and their establishment obey them
 
Last edited:
.
u.s army and establishment is more mature institution than our army that is why it is not dependent on single person and mostly their army chief name is not much known to world or even their public but in Pakistan everytime we require to give extension to army chief and have fear that next coas will not be able to do same job properly .We should end dependency on individuals in institutions and instead develop institutions as a whole so policies remain consistent

Your comment does not make sense. You say that "we should end dependency on individuals in institutions and instead develop institutions" but at the same time say "in Pakistan everytime we require to give extension to army chief and have fear that next coas will not be able to do same job properly"

To me it seem that the instituation is developed as it keep giving us escellent leaders. The issue seems to be with civilian mindset, insecurity and lack of trust in the instituation's ability to keep delivering.
 
.
Your comment does not make sense. You say that "we should end dependency on individuals in institutions and instead develop institutions" but at the same time say "in Pakistan everytime we require to give extension to army chief and have fear that next coas will not be able to do same job properly"

To me it seem that the instituation is developed as it keep giving us escellent leaders. The issue seems to be with civilian mindset, insecurity and lack of trust in the instituation's ability to keep delivering.
Institution not gave good leaders everytimes.Gen Yahyakhan was also result of this institution.Actually there remained tussle between army and govt from the beginning which produced insecurity in both institutions and is not good for army as well as political leadership.nawaz was launched by ziaulhaq which creates this stance in political leadership that they not need to deliver to public but instead can only come to power by pleasing establishment only without real performance
 
Last edited:
.
Institution not gave good leaders everytimes.Gen yahyakhan was also result of this institution.Actually there remained tussle between army and govt from the beginning which produced insecurity in both institutions and is not good for army as well as political leadership

Most of the time the cause of such tussels have been because on Political setup's insecurity and incompetence.

P.S I am talking about recent history and not going as far back as Yahya.
 
.
u.s army and establishment is more mature institution than our army that is why it is not dependent on single person and mostly their army chief name is not much known to world or even their public but in Pakistan everytime we require to give extension to army chief and have fear that next coas will not be able to do same job properly .We should end dependency on individuals in institutions and instead develop institutions as a whole so policies remain consistent ,this can happen only through promotion of merit and transparency in institutions.U.s policy is not totally controlled by army , the jewish and neocons lobby and bankers who control u.s central bank and have influence on their institutions dictate their policies and actually u.s is controlled by israel, both trump and their establishment obey them
No, US military is not more mature. US society is more mature and united so that it always choses political leadership that is broadly in sync with the military and bureaucratic elite. That is the differance in USA and Pakistan.

In Pakistan we regularly end up with political leaders who are so off the mark from the establishment that trouble starts and as the gulf is too wide it often end up becoming public with coups etc. For instance would a elected US President appoint some traitor like Husain Haqqani? And if that wa done that party would be finished. However in Pakistan PPP is still crying about 'democracy best revenge'.

This sort of nonsense and plain berayal of the state does no happen in mature countries. PMIK knows just like Trump that state includes the establishment and for smooth running of the country you have to work with them and not against them because that will cause chaos and weakness of the state.

Gen Yahyakhan
There was nothing wrong with Yahya. He was a splendid officer. He became the scapegoat of the more fundamental failure caused by the flaws within the DNA of the country.
 
.
I not think trump is a mature and wise leader,many doctors said he is mentally sick man and has alot of mood swings
No, US military is not more mature. US society is more mature and united so that it always choses political leadership that is broadly in sync with the military and bureaucratic elite. That is the differance in USA and Pakistan.

In Pakistan we regularly end up with political leaders who are so off the mark from the establishment that trouble starts and as the gulf is too wide it often end up becoming public with coups etc. For instance would a elected US President appoint some traitor like Husain Haqqani? And if that wa done that party would be finished. However in Pakistan PPP is still crying about 'democracy best revenge'.

This sort of nonsense and plain berayal of the state does no happen in mature countries. PMIK knows just like Trump that state includes the establishment and for smooth running of the country you have to work with them and not against them because that will cause chaos and weakness of the state.

There was nothing wrong with Yahya. He was a splendid officer. He became the scapegoat of the more fundamental failure caused by the flaws within the DNA of the country.
 
.
it always choses political leadership
But due to indirect parliamentary system we can't elect leadership we elect our local MNAs those MNAs get votes due to their personal relations with the people of the constituency and those MNAs chose prime minister
 
.
I not think trump is a mature and wise leader,many doctors said he is mentally sick man and has alot of mood swings
Well, Pakistan could do with many such 'mentally sick'. I wish I was also 'mentally sick' like him. This is a sick man who built a business empire and contibuted millions of dollars in taxation to US kitty as well as providing jobs for thousands of Americans. What exactly have me and you, mental good people done for Pakistan. Bitch and moan on PDF?
 
.
Most of busineess of trump is based on realestate business and he has old way of thinking and not encourage innovation.Recently he said that google should be charged with treason case and also he is against cryptocurrency.By this logic Malik Riaz should be P.M of Pakistan who is only matric pass
Well, Pakistan could do with many such 'mentally sick'. I wish I was also 'mentally sick' like him. This is a sick man who built a business empire and contibuted millions of dollars in taxation to US kitty as well as providing jobs for thousands of Americans. What exactly have me and you, mental good people done for Pakistan. Bitch and moan on PDF?
 
.
But due to indirect parliamentary system we can't elect leadership we elect our local MNAs those MNAs get votes due to their personal relations with the people of the constituency and those MNAs chose prime minister
Yes, I agree with you to a degree. However underlying issue is we have a very diverse, divided polity. What people in Dir, in Peshawar, in Chakwal, in Eminabad, in Multan, in Quetta, in Karachi etc want is vasty differant. Instead of being on one page often the country is not even reading the same book. But I agree Presidential system would help to paper over some of the issues.

By this logic Malik az should be P.M of Pakistan who is only matric pass
It was the American voters who chose him. who are we to decide? It's their country and they have done a awesome job of making it most prosperous country on earth. As regards Malik Riaz I certainly think he would have been no worse then Zardari or Nawaz or Bilawal or Maryam. At least he has built up a business.
 
.
What people in Dir, in Peshawar, in Chakwal, in Eminabad, in Multan, in Quetta, in Karachi
I don't know about Quetta Peshawar or Karachi but ganjas were winning in Punjab from dg khan to Narowal only due to this indirect system no one in Punjab likes them except those people who came from eastern Punjab
Without this system Nawaz Sharif type people can never win
Imran Khan has said multiple times that he personally likes presidential system over this system
 
.
In effect what the writer is saying is that the elected President and the 'system' are divided. The system [the establushment] views about Pakistan are not about to change easily as it has a very critical view of Pakistan. By the system he means bureaucrats and military officials or what might be called institutions.

Strange thing is that when this division is seen inside Pakistan between the elected and establishment. For instance the military having a differant perspective it is seen as bad or indication of malfunctioning state?

The basic premise of what the writer is saying is mistaken. Many would wish to see such division within USA, but they will be disappointed. The military is entitled to its own perspective in both countries, but it never formulates or leads policy,and always remains under civilian control in USA, while it sets the national agenda and operates above the law and civilian control in Pakistan.

With regards to the latest visit, let us just bask in the glory of claimed successes for now, before reality comes a-callin'.

==========================

BTW, the title of the thread has been changed in violation of PDF rules. This is the correct title:

Divisions persist

https://www.dawn.com/news/1497054
 
.
while it sets the national agenda and operates above the law and civilian control in Pakistan.
Nawaz Sharif was going to erase imaginary aalo gosht line but couldn't do it only due to pak army and this is what hurts you the most
That's why it's said army Pakistan ki nazariyati sarhadodon ki muhafiz hai
 
.

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom