The Pak-US Relationship

[RabzonKhan]

An American and a Pakistani

Thursday, July 16, 2009
Adnan Gill

Believe it or not, there was a time when Americans and Pakistanis were actually allies in letter and in spirit. It was the time when Gitmo and suicide bombers were not part of the lexicon. It was the time when the Cold War was at its height and Pakistan and the US were both members of SEATO and CENTO. The stage was Calcutta and the year was 1971. That's when a young US marine sergeant saved the life of a young Pakistan army captain on the run for his life. On July 16, 1971, he had just escaped from an undeclared Indian Prisoner of War (PoW) Concentration Camp at Panagarh, about 100 km west of Calcutta. It turns out that he was the first ever PoW to have escaped from Indian PoW camp. If it wasn't because of the marine sergeant, the hunted Pakistani would have been shot at sight 38 years ago today.

In a sea of Indians, the young captain navigated his way to the American Consulate General in Calcutta. The consulate was only a stone's throw away. But it's as if the lady luck was bent on making an ugly example out of the escapee. Anything that could have gone wrong, did. The hunted young man had to quietly pass by the consulate, because all the access points to it were blocked by the police. The young captain hadn't escaped the concentration camp to give-up. Dusk was approaching fast. Dusk meant curfew time. He sat in a park to contemplate his next move. Something had to be done fast. Somehow, the Pakistani manages to call the American consulate from a nearby Post Office. A young American marine sergeant answers the phone. The marine comes to the rescue of the hunted Pakistani and comes out to meet him.

With no time to spare, the duo decided to go through the gauntlet armed with confidence only. Both men walked through the police checkpoints, the gamble paid off; both entered the consulate safely. Even though, it looked like the worst was over, the Pakistani wasn't out of the woods yet. He still had some way to go before he reached safety in Pakistan. To cut a long story short, loaded with courage and ingenuity, and with the help of Americans, the Pakistani was able to beat the odds stacked against him.

No, it's not fiction. As thrilling it may sound, the story is true. The name of the Pakistan army captain is Ikram Sehgal, and the name of the marine sergeant is Frank Adair.

While the American didn't think much of it; the Pakistani couldn't forget the chance encounter. The Pakistani would spend next three decades looking for the American, he never forgot the man who saved his life. Finally, his perseverance pays off. Yet one more time, the US marines would help out Sehgal. Thanks to an American general, the Pakistani tracked down the American in California; the very same American who saved his life 38 years ago.

Ikram Sehgal went on to become not only a top businessman but one of the most well-known media persons in Pakistan. For his part, after serving his country with honours, Sgt Frank Adair joined the Los Angeles Police Department from where he retired as a detective.

I am the lucky one who enjoys the trust of heroes in their own right. And best of all, I walked away with a true story of luck, valour and courage, thanks to the American and the Pakistani; Sgt Adair and Capt Sehgal.


The writer is a US-based freelance contributor.

 

[RabzonKhan]

Charm offensive

Friday, July 24, 2009

The Obama administration is now settled in and the shape of its foreign policy is clearer. It would appear that the new broom in the White House is not only sweeping cleaner than its predecessor, but is committed to a wholesale cleanup rather than just rearranging the dust. Mr. Holbrooke is a man with a mission and a message, and he is a realist. He understands that there is a deep well of anger and resentment towards the US by many – perhaps most – of the people of Pakistan, and their animosity is in no small part a direct product of the eight years of the Bush presidency. Six months of Obama is not going to cancel out eight years of Bush, but at least a credible effort is nowadays being made by the US to engage in dialogue with us rather than shout at us from the sidelines.

Holbrooke made several comments that were indicative of the changing relationship that America working towards with Pakistan. We need assistance, specifically money, and we need a lot of it if we are to stay afloat. America is our largest donor and since May 2009 the Obama administration has committed more than $320 million to the Pakistani people to help them respond to the IDP crisis. This is not 'new money' and will be deducted from the $1.5bn package already agreed. But money is money and American money is as good as anybody else's, but the 'anybody else's' who could come to our aid are notably slow – particularly the Gulf states and the Europeans. Global economic recession is probably as much to blame for this as anything else said Holbrooke, and admitted that the cost of the war we fight today hits our exchequer hard. He was moderately optimistic that the money pledged would eventually get here, but he was also dropping a broad hint that we were going to have to manage with what we had got and that there was not a bottomless pot of treasure to help us out of our difficulties.

Looking wider, he commented that tension had reduced between Pakistan and India and that it was now up to both parties to get down to business – and Kashmir was not something he saw America becoming engaged with. India would be 'taken on board' in respect of actions against militants as they were a common enemy of Pakistan, India and Pakistan. He kept predictably silent about drones, their control or transfer of drone technology; and spoke positively of his four-hour meeting with President Zardari and Mian Nawaz Sharif. There was nothing new or dramatic about what he said or did during his visit and this is as it should be. We are moving into a different type of relationship with the US. Uncle Sam can wave the big stick, but he can also be attentive and avuncular and it is his interests that Pakistan does not slide into the darkness currently offered by the Taliban. Keep coming Mr Holbrooke, and keep listening – because if you don't listen you don't learn anything.

 

[RabzonKhan]

Pakistanis hold I-Day parade in NY

August 04, 2009

NEW YORK - Perhaps for the first time, representatives of Pakistan’s mainstream political parties came together at a colourful parade held by Pakistani-Americans living in and around New York on Sunday to mark the country’s 62nd anniversary.

Rainy spells did not dampen the enthusiasm of the participants, who came in large number to renew their dedication to their homeland and its founding father— Quaid-e-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah.

In a show of bipartisanship, Federal Minister and Chairperson of the Benazir Income Support Programme, Farzana Raja, PML-N leader Javed Hashmi and Dy Speaker Punjab Assembly, Rana Mashhood Ahmad Khan, called for national unity at this critical hour in the country’s history.

They also underscored the need for translating the Quaid-e-Azam’s motto of “Unity, Faith and Discipline’ into reality and work together in raising Pakistan’s stature.

Men, women and children, mostly clad in national dresses participated in this annual event in an unwavering show of enthusiasm and liveliness in the city. They exchanging Independence Day greetings with each other.

The New York City Mayor, Michael Bloomberg, joined the dynamic Pakistani-American community in marking the annual festivity that celebrates birth of the country on August 14, 1947 and pays tribute to the founding fathers for their epic struggle for goals of democracy and independence.

Raising “Pakistan Zindabad” slogans and waving the national flag, Pakistanis warmly cheered the parade as it moved down one of New York City’s main avenue. The route from Madison Avenue’s 41th Street - the starting point- was decorated with Pakistani and American flags.

About a dozen decorated floats, with some depicting Pakistan’s progress in various fields, while others sponsored by local Pakistani businesses, also wound their way down the avenue. Bands on the floats and on the ground struck up by patriotic song.

In her speech, Farzana Raja congratulated the Pakistanis living here for organising such a magnificent event. “You are the true ambassadors of Pakistan and the nation is proud of you,” she told the cheering crowd.

 

[S-2]

The intersection of 41st and Madison Ave., eh? Impressive.

Much congratulations on your independance celebration.

 

[fatman17]

US drive to bolster Pakistan civilian aid stalls

By Daniel Dombey in Washington

Published: August 5 2009

A showpiece US policy on Pakistan - endorsed by Barack Obama, Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton even before they took office - has stalled in Congress because of differences among legislators over what approach Washington should take to Islamabad.

During last year's US election campaign, all three US officials - then senators and now respectively president, vice-president and secretary of state - backed the proposal to triple civilian aid to Pakistan to $1.5bn (€1.04bn, £885bn) a year.

"It's time to strengthen stability by standing up for the aspirations of the Pakistani people," Mr Obama said in a speech in June 2008 that laid out his support for the measure. "We must move beyond a purely military alliance built on convenience or face mounting popular opposition in a nuclear-armed nation at the nexus of terror and radical Islam."

But more than a year later the five-year legislation has not been agreed because of differences between the Senate and the House of Representatives over what conditions should be set for the aid and what specifications should be imposed on how the money is used.

Legislative aides said last-minute negotiations last week closed the gap between legislators but failed to produce agreement, meaning that the House went into recess without an accord. As a result, no legislation can now be passed before Congress reconvenes in September.

In the meantime, a policy that the Obama administration had sought to put at the heart of its Afghanistan-Pakistan strategy has yet to be determined. Although aid for this year has already been appropriated, the terms for the binding five-year programme - costing a total of $7.5bn - have not yet been agreed.

While Pakistan has objected strongly to attaching conditions to aid, both versions of the legislation include conditions based on efforts in the battle against the Taliban and al-Qaeda. However, the House version goes further by prohibiting military assistance if Islamabad is deemed to be making inadequate efforts to combat nuclear proliferation and also specifies in much greater detail how the aid should be used.

Senate aides argue that such an approach risks being counter-productive and could infuriate Islam-abad.

House aides reply that Pakistan's history of nuclear proliferation re-quires tough scrutiny and that the US has erred in the past by not sufficiently overseeing billions of dollars in aid to the country.

Congressional staffers say that, after an agreement is reached between the two sides, legislation will have to be reintroduced in both chambers of Congress.

The Financial Times Limited 2009

 

[fatman17]

US must respect Pakistan’s strategic interests: Burns

* US, India believe China cannot be contained, should be engaged

By Iftikhar Gilani

NEW DELHI: One of former US president George W Bush’s top aides on Tuesday urged the US to respect Pakistan’s strategic interests.

Addressing an interactive meeting in India, former US undersecretary of state and architect of the Indo-US nuclear deal, Nicholas Burns, said his country needed to unite with Pakistan to combat extremist groups. Blaming past Pakistani governments for the worsening situation in the region, he said: “US-Pakistan relations are vital to the administration. We have to be friends with Pakistan so we can combat extremist groups. Past governments have been responsible for the worsening of the situation there and now we have to convince Pakistan to do more.”

Burns, who is in India to establish an Indian politics programme at the Harvard Kennedy School where he teaches, said the internal security situation of Pakistan should be a cause for concern for everyone. “There is nothing more important to worry about, than the internal security of Pakistan - it is highly unstable,” he added. However, he said the US and Pakistan needed to respect each other’s strategic interests and take into account regional and global perspectives. He said the US-India civil nuclear cooperation agreement had been a watershed, historically and symbolically, for the two nations. He said it marked the US’ recognition of India’s rise as a global power and “we hope to see the full implementation of the agreement, which could lead to cooperation in other areas”.

Engage, not contain: Burns revealed that America’s focus has shifted to South Asia and the Middle East because of the myriad challenges in these regions. Alluding to China as a rising global power, he said there was consensus in the US and India that it was not possible to contain China, but it was possible to engage with it. He said China should demonstrate greater responsibility and be willing to compromise for the global good.

On the US and India’s relations with Pakistan, Burns said both countries were great nations. However, he added, the US felt it was imperative to have “independent” relations with Islamabad and New Delhi even as it sought to improve bilateral relations between them.

 

[stevesteevy]

very unfortunate

 

[muse]

Transformation?

Sunday, August 23, 2009
Dr Farrukh Saleem

February 6, 2009: Senator Kerry, chairman of the powerful Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said: "In my conversations with Admiral Mullen… there is a sense of some transformation -- of a willingness to engage in some transformation. I also find that both General Pasha and General Kayani are likewise committed."

April 17: Within 71 days of Kerry's statement, Friends of Democratic Pakistan, upon US prodding, pledged $5.28 billion.

June 11: Within 125 days of Kerry's statement, the US House of Representatives passed The Pakistan Enduring Assistance and Cooperation Enhancement Act authorising $1.5 billion per fiscal year for non-military assistance to Pakistan plus $300 million for FY2010 and such funds as may be necessary for 'Pakistan Counterinsurgency Capabilities Fund' plus $300 million in Foreign Military Financing.

June 24: With 138 days of Kerry's statement, the US Senate passed The Enhanced Partnership with Pakistan Act authorising $1.5 billion per fiscal year for non-military assistance to Pakistan.

June 2009: Congressional conferees authorised $1 billion for coalition support fund reimbursements (Pakistan receives around 80 per cent of the total) plus $896 million for embassy expansion plus $539 million in Economic Support Funds.

July 24: Syed Saleem Shahzad, Asia Times Online's bureau chief in Islamabad, one of Pakistan's most perceptive journalists, wrote: "The seamless friendship between… Admiral Mullen and General Kayani has cemented the relationship between the military establishments of the two countries to levels not seen since the 1950s… The result is that Islamabad and Washington are in a position to implement coordinated, long-term policies in the region, which include action against militants, moves to improve ties between Pakistan and India, especially their dispute over divided Kashmir…"

July 30: Syed Saleem Shahzad wrote: "Intense US efforts and assurances have put Pakistan and India on track to renew their dialogue process over key contentious issues, such as divided Kashmir. An important upshot of this is that Islamabad has begun a crackdown on jihadi assets…"

August 5: Within 169 days of Kerry's statement and within 45 days of Saleem Shahzad's article, a US unmanned aerial vehicle fired two air-to-surface Hellfire missiles that killed Baitullah.

August 7: Within 171 days of Kerry's statement, the IMF increased its financial support to $11.3 billion.

August 10: Within 10 days of Saleem Shahzad's article, India's Ministry of Home Affairs began withdrawing four battalions of the Central Reserve Police Force from the border.

August 12: Within 180 days of Kerry's statement, the Ministry of Defence told The News that "32 officers have been retired and others will be fired within the next few months in government efforts to streamline the ISI."

August 18: Lieutenant-General Nadeem told Reuters, "The Pakistan army was short of equipment…" The same day, Holbrooke assured that the US shall "expedite delivery of equipment requested by the Pakistani army."

For the record, within days of Kerry's February 6 statement, US drones shifted focus to the anti-Pakistan Taliban in South Waziristan. Since February 6, with an average of one strike a week, South Waziristan has been hit 23 times; areas controlled by Baitullah have been hit 15 times. For the record, Mian Habib-ur-Rehman of Harkat died in police custody and Shah Abdul Aziz of Jaish was sent to Adiala. Qari Saifullah was arrested on August 17 and Maulvi Omar the following day.

Our strategic thinkers have long considered home-grown terrorists as tourists with guns. Are they now shifting their sail with the wind? Or, are they actually turning on their jihadi assets? Kerry seems convinced that a 'transformation' is underway. And, Kerry may only be older than I am by a day but he is wiser than I am by a year.


The writer is the executive director of the Centre for Research and Security Studies (CRSS). Email: farrukh 15@hotmail.com

 

[fatman17]

Less Is More When It Comes to Pakistan

The lesson to be learned from Pakistan's apparent success is that in international affairs, as in other matters, the less the U.S. government does the better.

News reports from Pakistan indicate that more than 1.5 million refugees from the Swat Valley, scene of fighting between government troops and Taliban insurgents, have returned to their homes. How soon the remaining refugees are repatriated will depend on whether government troops can maintain calm in the face of renewed violence.

Some 2.3 million people are thought to have fled the fighting, which began this spring when the Pakistan army launched an offensive to drive the Taliban out of the region.

While it's too soon to gauge the long-term effects of the campaign, it's not too early to learn from the experience. And the most important lesson here, from a U.S. perspective, may be the following: that countries such as Pakistan are capable of solving their own problems without U.S. meddling.

During the presidential campaign, then Senator Joe Biden predicted it would "not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama." An international crisis, Biden warned, would quickly "test the mettle of this guy."

Just four months after taking office, Obama was confronted, with Taliban militants advancing within 60 miles of the capital of nuclear-armed Pakistan.

The government of President Asif Ali Zardari had attempted to negotiate with the Taliban, allowing them to impose harsh Islamic law in portions of Pakistan's North West Frontier Province --adjacent to the Swat Valley. In exchange, the Taliban offered a cease fire. But the arrangement was unacceptable to the United States, since the Taliban had made it clear that any area they controlled would provide refuge for Usama bin Laden.

That's when Pakistan's military decided to significantly step up its operations in the Swat Valley, which the Taliban had controlled since 2005.

Previous military operations against militants in the region had lukewarm support from the public --largely because they were viewed as proxy operations for the United States, and anti-American resentment runs high.

The United States did not help the situation with reports that the Obama administration was wooing Zardari's main political adversary, former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif.

Senior administration officials strongly denied this, saying --on the eve of Zardari's visit to Washington earlier this year --that the United States continues to fully support the Zardari government.

Yet, the view from Islamabad was that the United States was trying to meddle. As one senior Pakistani official put it, "What are the Americans trying to do, micromanage our politics? This is not South Vietnam."

Understandably, the United States' primary concern was preventing the Taliban from gaining control of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal.

Yet, full-scale U.S. military operations to avert such a situation were out of the question. The last thing the United States needed to do was invade another Muslim country and lend credence to the claim that we are waging a wider war against Islam.

Even the kinds of military operations that U.S. forces have been conducting are unhelpful. As has been demonstrated in Afghanistan, air strikes --even if they are carefully targeted --too often produce civilian casualties. The result is increased anti-Americanism and more sympathy and support for Al-Qaeda and its ilk.

Giving the Pakistani government more money and arms also has solved little. Since 9/11, Pakistan has received some $12 billion in mostly military aid from the United States, ostensibly to reimburse the government for the cost of operations against Al Qaeda and the Taliban. The trouble is: Most of that money has been used to buy heavy arms, such as F-16 fighter jets, and other equipment ill-suited for counterinsurgency operations, but more appropriate for a conventional war with India.

In many ways, the United States managed to maneuver itself into a corner. The best option remaining to the administration was to do as little as possible.

U.S. meddling in Pakistan's internal affairs helped create Pakistan's problems. Doing less has now enabled the Zardari government to more clearly define where U.S. and Pakistani interests coincide and where they diverge, and move forward accordingly. The lesson to be learned from Pakistan's apparent success is that in international affairs, as in other matters, the less the U.S. government does the better.

Charles V. Pena is a Washington-based senior fellow with The Independent Institute, Oakland, California.

 

[muse]

O America

Sunday, September 06, 2009
Dr Farrukh Saleem

O America they are saying that you want to destabilise Pakistan. Why did America then vote all of its 371,743 votes at the IMF in favour of a $7.6 billion loan to enable Pakistan implement a stabilisation programme? Why did America then goad the so-called FODP pledge $5.7 billion to Pakistan? Why did the full House pass the $1.5 billion a year non-military assistance to Pakistan? Why did the US Senate pass the $1.5 billion a year non-military assistance to Pakistan? Why did the IMF increase financial support to $11.3 billion?

O America they are saying that you want our bomb. All that we have is a stockpile of 80 warheads. Your peak stockpile was 32,193 warheads. All that we have to our credit is six detonations. You have gone through 1,054 detonations. All that we have is a missile range of 2,500 km but Washington is 11,000 km away and Tel Aviv 3,500 km. We can't hurt you. You have intercontinental ballistic missiles. You have nuclear submarine-launched ballistic missiles. We have neither. Why would you want our bomb?

O America they are saying you are going to colonise Islamabad. Yes, H R 111-151, the Congressional report on supplemental appropriations allocates "$896 million for embassy security, construction and maintenance." There's roughly $200 million for 250 new residential units (meaning that there would be at least 250 new staff). The additional allocation makes sense because if America is going to spend a colossal $1.5 billion every year more Americans must be placed in Islamabad to oversee the spending of such large amounts of US assistance. What doesn't make sense is that colonisers colonise in order to extract profits from the lands they colonise but Islamabad is in the Pothohar Plateau and all that the Pothohar Plateau has is undulating terrain, porcupines, wild boars and mongooses.

Just what is the reality about America? America is the biggest economy (America became the biggest a hundred years ago -- when it surpassed England -- and has managed to remain the biggest). America is 4.5 per cent of the world population but produces more than 20 per cent of global GDP. Remember; of the 192 member-states of the UN 191 countries collectively spend $700 billion on defence while America alone spends $700 billion on America's defence. Consequently, if America is in Iraq no power -- other than American public opinion -- can force America out. If America is in Afghanistan no power -- other than American public opinion -- can force America out of Afghanistan. We can continue to dream about bringing America down to its knees but there is a fine line between dreams and reality -- and it's up to us to draw that line.

Just what is the reality about Pakistan? America is Pakistan's single largest export market. America is Pakistan's single largest foreign investor. America is Pakistan's single largest source of expatriate remittances. America is Pakistan's largest forgiver of loans. America is Pakistan army's largest supplier. And yet, our Imran Khans insist that "reality is wrong, dreams are for real".

Uncle Sam is neither Pakistan's friend nor Pakistan's foe. Uncle Sam has interests and America does everything to protect those interests. We need to conduct our own SWOT analysis -- strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats. Our strength is that America needs us to neutralise the Al Qaeda threat. Our weaknesses are bigger than the Himalayas. We need to capture all the opportunities and decimate our own threats -- with American help -- along the way.

P S: My column "Sugar daddies" (Aug 30) asserted that "sugar is being sold for Rs56/kilo." Mian Shahbaz Sharif telephoned, disputed my assertion and insisted that "sugar was being sold at Rs45/kilo in all areas under his jurisdiction." I checked Lahore and Faisalabad. Sugar was actually being sold at Rs45 a kilo.



The writer is the executive director of the Centre for Research and Security Studies (CRSS).

Email: farrukh15@hotmail.com

 

[niaz]

Jang Group Online

This is the link to a very nice article in Urdu published in the Jang of today. It is about what even intellectuals in Pakistan think about 9/11. Please click on Jirga- by Salim Saafi.

Sorry but I was unable to copy/paste the article itself.

 

[muse]

Pak-US relations independent of Washington’s Afghan policy: Gates

* Islamabad performed better than expectations in anti-terror campaign

ISLAMABAD/WASHINGTON: Highlighting Pakistan’s recent success in the anti-terror campaign as well as the country’s intrinsic and strategic significance, US Defence Secretary Robert Gates said Washington would build a long-term relationship with Islamabad which would be independent of the US Afghan policy.

“It (Pakistan) is important intrinsically to the US. We have been Pakistan’s friend and an ally for a long time. We’ve had a very close relationship and we look forward to building that relationship, going forward completely independent of Afghanistan,” he told Al-Jazeera TV on Sunday.

“I believe the Pakistani government, both the civilian side and the military side, had performed better than almost anyone’s expectations in the region, or in this country, or elsewhere, and we are very impressed by that and we are prepared to be helpful, to help the Pakistanis in any way we can,” he said.

Gates cited the unprecedented political consensus Islamabad had achieved in the fight against the Taliban and effectiveness of the operations the Pakistani forces had launched in Swat in recent months.

“I think if you look back, 15 or 16 months, the Pakistani government has performed admirably,” he noted, according to a transcript released by the TV channel.

“No one would have predicted the political consensus that had emerged in Pakistan in terms of the effort to take on these extremists in the NWFP and FATA.”

He also hailed Islamabad’s response to the humanitarian crisis it faced in the form of massive internal displacement from the conflict zone.

Pakistan, he said to a question, was a “very important” country.

“I think one of the new aspects of the (US) president’s strategy with respect to Afghanistan is the recognition that the problem we face there, we and the Afghans, is a regional problem. And as we’ve seen in recent months, it is a problem that the Pakistani government faces and so I think Pakistan clearly is important.”

“Pakistan is important in its own right to the US, as a friend and an ally,” Gates said. app

 

[muse]

I and many others have argued that the US is unable, structurally unable to have the kinds of relations, not just with Pakistan, but with Muslim majority countires in general, because key elements of society and governmental structure are hostile to Muslim majorities, and Muslim monorities, any kind of Muslim, so long as they respresent organized power. I and others have argued that the US Congress and the general corporate media in the US are ill at ease with the very idea of an intellectual and spiritual that exercises the kind of influence that Islam does and view Islam with hostility.

Now, to the heart of the matter, can we have good relations with the US?? Is the US a friend?? Below is a possible answer by prof. Rais, he begins by suggesting that we have asked a "wrong" question :


Is America our friend?
Rasul Bakhsh Rais



This is a wrong question that is often raised and debated in the media, academic and political circles. Why it is a wrong question? Friendship between and among states has a different quality to it, and has more substance and meanings than the conception of friendship between people. And it is not really friendship between states, but the totality of relationship — its nature, extent, diversity, depth and commonality of objectives — that matters. Otherwise all countries with which a country might have diplomatic ties could qualify as ‘friends’, with very rare exceptions.

Relations among states have many dimensions and depths, and are motivated less by moral considerations and more by how the two sides in the relationship can benefit from what they do together on issues of peace, security or economic cooperation.

What really matters then is the issue of benefit. It is assumed that all states are rational actors, and those who govern them think rationally about the interest of their states and forge relationships to achieve national objectives. This may sound a bit academic and theoretical, but it is necessary to spell out what generally the operating assumptions of any country’s foreign policy are.

It is equally true that politicians and others types that control the states may fail to understand what the real interest of their states could be in a given situation. This could be due to false or incomplete information or due to some personality factors — any perceptual or emotional defects that may stand in the way of fully understanding and appreciating the dynamics of power politics or other forces that shape modern nation states.

All types of states, in disregard to their internal political configurations, are driven by self-interest. But self-interest in a globalised world requires cooperation with other states; no state can help itself, achieve progress or peace without the cooperation of other states. Yes, there can be serious questions about who gets how much and when out of cooperative enterprises among states, with so many layers of non-state actors like the multi-national corporations opening many paths and adding to the complexity of interactions.

Relations between states, however, cannot be zero-sum games; there are obvious and objective reasons for shaping them and there are benefits to be drawn. Never are such relations one-way traffic, at least not since the end of colonialism, with benefits flowing in one direction and costs accumulating on the other side.

We need to have some clarity about how the world system functions and how states form cooperative relationships in order to answer the question we have raised above.

It is not just our relationship with the United States but with other states as well that requires a degree of pragmatism and some basic knowledge of the operating principles and realities of world politics. Much of this knowledge is lost when one takes an ideological position on who can be a friend and who cannot be in the world arena.

The national debate on our relationship with the United States has interesting points that show how ideology and emotions have shaped it more than any clear ideas about what we have gained in different areas of national life.

This is not to discount the fact that this relationship has been controversial and remains so in the context of the current war in Afghanistan and our support to the international coalition to defeat the Taliban. And there have been hidden costs and negative consequences on our political landscape with great impact on the balance between political forces and state institutions.

But such costs are as much a result of our own state weaknesses, internal political confrontations, institutional conflicts and the character of ruling groups as the rentier quality of our state. No state can think of operating in an ideal environment, let alone Pakistan with so many internal problems and a highly complex regional security environment.

We need to apply a rational approach to the debate on our relations with the United States, with a full understanding of our objectives and how best we can realise them in an imperfect world with self-centred and competing states. This perspective is unfortunately lacking when we try to understand and explain state-to-state relations in personalised terms.

In the contemporary world, given our vital interests and multiple internal and external vulnerabilities, no other relationship for us can be more important than the one we have with the United States today. The question is how best we can turn this relationship to the benefit of Pakistan. We have in the past on many occasions protected our vital interests, like the nuclear programme, without yielding any ground, no matter what the amount of pressure.

Today, we seem to be divided not on the quality of relationship with the United States but essentially on whether or not Pakistan should be extending the support it is to the international coalition, mainly the US, in Afghanistan to defeat the Taliban insurgency. There is a section of Pakistani society that feels that the Taliban in Afghanistan are justified in resisting what they call a foreign occupation, and argue that Pakistan must stand neutral in this conflict.

That is not possible. Perhaps they don’t realise that the Tehreek-e Taliban of Pakistan is inspired, guided, funded, and controlled by the Afghan Taliban. The two have the same ideology and worldview, and believe in using violence to capture state power. It is however debatable what the best strategy is to deal with the issue of non-state actors and how can we peel local populations away from them.

Pakistan and Afghanistan face similar internal security threats but at varying degrees as state capacities are different. The war in Afghanistan, the current phase and its earlier cycles, have affected Pakistan very badly. Pakistan’s security and peace hinges on the success of the international effort to secure and rebuild Afghanistan.

The United States has come to occupy a central position in the strategic environment of Afghanistan and Pakistan. This may not be an ideal situation for us but that is the reality. Our rational self-interest in this situation dictates that we help rebuild a stable Afghanistan, help end the war and deepen our relationship with the United States, taking it beyond the contingencies of Afghanistan. There is genuine interest in the US and other world capitals in stabilising and normalising Pakistan by giving it a democratic and developmental orientation. It depends on us how best we leverage our position and advance our national interests.

Dr Rasul Bakhsh Rais is author of Recovering the Frontier State: War, Ethnicity and State in Afghanistan (Oxford University Press, 2008) and a professor of Political Science at the Lahore University of Management Sciences. He can be reached at rasul@lums.edu.pk

 

[muse]

Editorial: ****** strategy and Pakistan

Before he goes to the United States to meet President Barack Obama later this month, President Asif Zardari has expressed the view that Pakistan should not be lumped together with Afghanistan in America’s “Af-Pak” strategy to end “a Taliban insurgency and bring stability to the region”.

Talking to Financial Times, he said: “Afghanistan and Pakistan are distinctly different countries, and cannot be lumped together for any reason”. The comment reflects Pakistan’s unwillingness to be aligned in a joint policy framework with neighbouring Afghanistan. President Zardari prefers treating the problem as two separate insurgencies, fought separately by NATO and the Pakistan Army, and not as a “single arena of conflict”.

There are many implicit differences of approach in this statement, not necessarily mutually hostile by intent. The US has a kind of “vertical” view that sees the region without the Durand Line that separates Afghanistan from Pakistan. Pakistan has a “horizontal” view of the region, insisting that Pakistan be treated as a sovereign state and not as a stretch of regional territory. The hidden message from Pakistan is a rejection of the comment published frequently in America that Pakistan “interferes” in Afghanistan, that it shelters the Taliban militants and helps them raid across the Durand Line inside Afghanistan.

The next hidden message is the rejection of the American strategy of using drone aircraft to strike inside Pakistan under the assumption that the NATO battlefield is seamless and that Pakistan simply does not exist as a sovereign state although it is an important ally. But Pakistan wants to be helped in taking care of the threat of the Taliban in its tribal areas, possibly by using the drones under its own control to avoid collateral damage.

The disadvantage Pakistan sees in being treated as one stretch of unbroken territory with Afghanistan is related to the economic aspects of the conflict as well. Pakistan is the sixth largest state in the world in population and the scale of assistance needed to empower it to fight terrorism cannot be related to the budgets being allocated to Afghanistan. It sees aid disbursements as a problem that could have emanated from the American experience in Afghanistan.

Although his critics at home insist on equating President Zardari’s view with that of General Pervez Musharraf (retd), the former’s approach to Afghanistan and the Karzai government there was quite different. In fact, it was his frank acceptance of the Kabul government as an entity he could work with that set him apart. But most Pakistanis prefer describing the Kabul government as “American puppet” in line with the opinion of the Taliban on both sides of the border.

However, there are some bitter facts that Pakistan must put in its pipe and smoke. The insurgents of the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) swear allegiance to Mullah Umar of the Afghan Taliban and “Sheikh” Osama bin Laden of Al Qaeda as they face the Pakistan Army. They also swear on their intent to strike across the Durand Line to “defeat” the Americans. And the US “drone strategy”, responding to this, has not always harmed Pakistan. In fact, the killing of Baitullah Mehsud by a drone has enhanced Pakistan’s chances of crushing the terrorists on its territory.

Also, Pakistan is yet to unveil its long-term policy towards Afghanistan after the failure of its policy of “strategic depth”. In fact, if the old policy was anti-India, the articulation of a possible new policy could turn out to be even more anti-India. But Pakistan needs to be de-linked from Afghanistan only in order to be linked to a broader SAARC and Central Asian regional framework with India, Iran, China and Russia playing an important role in it.

What Pakistan must avoid is the blunder of falling once again for the lure of “strategic depth” to fill the power vacuum in Afghanistan after the Americans leave. It must activate its diplomacy now to prevent being bitten twice from the same hole, as they say in Urdu. Thus President Zardari should remain alive to the need of regional networking despite the general Pakistani reflex of repeating the past mistakes in order to save “national honour”. He must be encouraged to pursue it as Pakistan’s new strategy

 

[muse]

Recognise Pakistan’s progress in war on terror: Mullen

*Washington will extend support at Pakistan’s own pace
*US wants Pak, India to engage in senior-level talks

WASHINGTON: Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the US joint chiefs of staff committee, told US lawmakers on Tuesday that it is important to recognise the success of the Pakistan Army offensive against the Taliban that has recently cemented the long-term strategic and cooperative relationship between the two countries.

In reference to the army’s offensive in the NWFP, Mullen said in the last year the Pakistani military and the Frontier Corps had achieved a lot.

"A lot has changed in the last year in Pakistan in terms of what the Pakistani military and the Frontier Corps have achieved. And I think it's important to recognise that, because a year or two ago, there were many people who were very sceptical that they would do anything at all. And they've had a big impact," Mullen said at a Senate Armed Services Committee confirmation hearing for his second term as chairman.

Islamabad’s decision: He said the US would continue to support Islamabad at the pace the country desired.

"We are there to support them where they are asking for our support. That said, it's only going to go as fast as they want it to go. I've been there I think 13 times. It's very clear to me that they very much appreciate the support, but it's going to be at their pace --- even though many of us would like to see it happen more quickly," he added.

He drew lawmakers' attention to the vitality of US assistance for Pakistan in the long-term under a pending bipartisan bill, sponsored by senators John Kerry and Richard Lugar.

"We think that is an important long-term relationship. They still ask, are you staying or going this time? That’s not unlike the question that gets asked in Afghanistan. The Kerry-Lugar bill is very important, as far as I am concerned, because it is not about $ 1.5 billion a year as much a five-year commitment to Pakistan. So our strategy is, I think, much more comprehensive with Pakistan than it used to be. But there are limits. It's a sovereign country, and they are very much in charge of their own country," Mullen said.

More engagement: Mullen said the US wanted India and Pakistan to engage at senior-level talks as Washington was seeking opportunities to build confidence between the two South Asian nations. He added that both countries faced common regional threats of violent extremism.

"India and Pakistan share a common regional threat of violent extremism. Our strategy is regionally focused and acknowledges that what happens in one country affects the other," Mullen said. app