By Arif Rafiq
The need to redefine our relationship with Pakistan – a nuclear-armed, frontline state in the war on terror – has never been greater. Now there is considerable opportunity to do so.
U.S. Senate Democrats issued a letter to President George W. Bush this month urging him to "embark on a new relationship with Pakistan based on cooperation with institutions rather than individuals, and to support the will of the Pakistani people as expressed in the February 18 parliamentary elections."
Historically, ties between the United States and Pakistan have been strongest with a Republican in the White House and an army general in power in Islamabad, with the political goodwill usually ending when Democrats start governing in Washington and elected representatives take power in Islamabad. This has been the story of the on-again, off-again U.S.-Pakistan relationship since the 1950s.
U.S. Democrats could break this cycle by supporting the new civilian government in Islamabad during this period of transition, in which democracy and nationalism are being renewed. But the Bush administration must also follow suit. The policy of relying heavily on one general (in this case Pervez Musharraf) has proven shortsighted. What’s needed now to fulfill long-term mutual interests are strong ties with the people, nation and state of Pakistan.
Failure to do so in the Bush administration’s remaining months could cause irreparable harm to our relationship with Pakistan. In a democratic Pakistan, decision-making will be less centralized and more representative of public opinion. But the current U.S. administration is increasingly acting unilaterally in Pakistan's tribal areas and has aggressively tried to ensure a pliant government in Islamabad.
And so, amidst the opportunity for U.S.-Pakistan ties to grow also lies the seeds for their unravelling. Sustained bilateral cooperation is in the interest of both countries, and needs to be secured. This requires recasting the U.S.-Pakistan partnership as one between sovereign democracies.
Toward this end, here are four recommendations for U.S. policymakers:
1) Don't interfere in Pakistan's internal politics. Washington has tried to assemble a coalition government to its liking, excluding Pakistan's second largest party, the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N). Such an approach has backfired, rewarding those who are seen as standing up to the United States. If Washington continues to overplay its hand, it could find such parties in power and itself, partner-less in Islamabad.
2) Engage the Pakistani people. The United States should, however, still make its voice heard in Pakistan. U.S. officials visit Pakistan on an almost weekly basis, but rarely speak to the local media. American generals and diplomats appear on the pan-Arab Al Jazeera with regularity, but their Pakistan outreach is scant. There's no excuse for avoiding Pakistan's news outlets, two of which are exclusively English-language (DawnNews and GEO English).
Instead of making their case to the Pakistani people, U.S. officials deal with their Pakistani counterparts behind closed doors. As a result, Pakistanis see the United States not as a friend, but a bully. And the good that Washington does in Pakistan, such as providing Fulbright grants and funding civil society groups, goes vastly under-appreciated.
3) Provide a sizable democracy dividend. Pakistan's two previous democratic periods, in the 1970s and 1990s, were met with massive reductions in U.S. aid, facilitating democracy’s demise in a perpetually cash-strapped Pakistan. This time around, the United States should maintain military aid and follow Senator Joseph Biden's proposal to triple non-military assistance to $1.5 billion.
Although it is deeply impoverished, Pakistan is an emerging market. Yet its recent economic surge has produced few jobs. Washington's help would be most effective in educational and infrastructural development. And it should actively consider a free trade agreement. Pakistan's major industries – agriculture and textiles – are in a state of crisis. Eliminating trade barriers will make Pakistani exports more competitive, spur job growth, and easily win Pakistani hearts.
4) Forge a comprehensive Pakistan-Afghanistan policy. Unilateralism and military force cannot defeat the insurgencies in Pakistan and Afghanistan. But a comprehensive, regional solution can. It would require prying local militants away from al-Qaeda, integrating Pakistani and Afghan insurgents into their respective political systems, and repairing Pakistan-Afghanistan ties.
Ending the insurgencies might also necessitate replacing U.S. and NATO forces with troops from non-neighboring Muslim states such as Indonesia and Turkey. No occupying power has lasted this long in Afghanistan.
Our relations with Pakistan are at a decisive juncture. The current and next U.S. administration and Congress have an opportunity to strike a new deal with this nascent Muslim democracy, nuclear power, and pivotal country in a critical region. We cannot afford to pass up that chance.
Arif Rafiq is a policy and communications consultant and editor of the Pakistan Policy Blog. This article was written for the Common Ground News Service (CGNews).
Please e-mail PostGlobal if you'd like to receive an email notification when PostGlobal sends out a new question.
Comments (12)
While the points Mr. Rafiq brings up are good, his entire article failed to address the issue of corruption.
in particular, his "democracy dividend" will take the existing policy of funding corrupt military generals and instead shift over to funding corrupt politicians.
if the US wants to see change in pakistan, then it will have to invest in its people. not in the clowns that are now running the show. they will sell their country's interests and american interests out to whomever pays them the most.
May 1, 2008 6:07 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 1, 2008 18:07
Most terrorist plots are hatched in pakistan. While a lrge portion of the pakistani population may not be involved, a significant portion is.
The best way to stop terroristic activities in Pakistan is to stop all immigration from Pkistan to western countries for the next hundred years unless the pakistani governmnet does an efficient job of curtailing terrorism. This is unlikely because the pakistani government's involvement wit Taliban and Al Qaeda is beyond question as both have been and still are being aided by the pakistanis.
April 30, 2008 6:46 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 30, 2008 06:46
this is a good article but the insistence on military aid is wrong
in fact US govt should insist that their aid of $15B shouldn't help pakistan to maintain or increase its military budget. pakistan is under no external threat so its miltiary budget should be really zero!
insist on this and see that all money is properly accounted for
April 30, 2008 6:37 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 30, 2008 06:37
Mr. Arif Rafiq has given very good guide lines to sort out the present state of affairs in Pakistan. Along with that I would like to add one more suggestion.
Both India and Pakistan are deploying so much millitary forces at their borders. All due to the Kashmir problem. If that problem is solved in a give and take basis both countries will benifit economically due to the money saved on military expenditure. For that Pakistan must in right earnest stop arming and aiding the militants at its eastern border. It is not possible to deal with terrorism in a partial manner. If you some how win over Taliban and Alquaeda but leave the terrorist working in Kashmir sector to continue, in a short time it will be back to square one .Terrorism is like cancer. It has to be removed completely and a good chemotherapy done to see that it does not grow up again. One of the drug to be used in chemotherapy is to dismantle all madrasas and have proper schooling and modern education for all the children. It is very easy to mould the tender mind. Otherwise so many an innocent young ones will get slaughtered at the altar of religious fanaticism.
April 30, 2008 1:06 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 30, 2008 01:06
Great article. There's so much potential for Pakistan and I'm glad the author acknowledged it. I hope the Obama campaign reads this piece!
April 29, 2008 3:43 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 29, 2008 15:43
Let us also give some credit to Pakistan. All is not bleak. The country is one of our greatest supporters and we have to appreciate its efforts. Let the Pakistanis decide their own fate, the lessons we have learnt from Iraq should be ample proof not to interfere anywhere in the world! Pakistanis are peaceful people, and we should not blow the picture out of proportion. Our government should give the Pakistanis some credit, scolding them pushes them all the way further.
April 29, 2008 3:02 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 29, 2008 15:02
for Pakistanis:
1. Stop blowing up innocent people inside and outside Pakistan.
2. Stop supporting terrorists of Taliban and Kashmir.
3. Make your country a secular, respectful state.
4. Revise Quran to respect all of humanity.
USA and others will respect you in return. I am sick and tired of Muslims always complaining and saying what has USA done for us. Even when we stay involved and try to promote democracy, they blow us up in any case.
April 29, 2008 2:56 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 29, 2008 14:56
Stop blaming America for your policy missteps.
Pakistani military made a deliberate decision to promote Islamic fundamentalism to disguise its aggressive ambitions and to hide internal ethnic fault lines in Pakistan. Pakistani military choose which Afghan factions received weapons during the 1980s. They backed the Taliban in the 1990s. They tolerated Al Qaeda terrorists.
April 29, 2008 11:41 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 29, 2008 11:41
>> Declassified US Intelligence Information Report (IIR) dated November 7, 1996 reiterates how "Pakistan's ISI is heavily involved in Afghanistan," but also details different roles various ISI officers play in Afghanistan.
And this 'Report' is more credible than the one that said that Iraq has Nuclear weapons?
April 29, 2008 11:15 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 29, 2008 11:15
>> While General Petraeus blames Iran endlessly for American servicemen dieing in Iraq, Pakistan does NOT get blamed for American servicemen dieing in Afghanistan by anybody in US administration or news media for that matter.
And what about the Pakistani Army and common people dying because Pakistan is cracking down on these militants? There were no daily bomb blasts in Pakistan, until the Pakistani government started cracking down on the militants (as well as the frequent attacks by the Americans on Pakistani soil).
Pakistan is already paying a lot of price for helping America in its cause. I am sure that the total number of Pakistani people as well as Paki Armed forces that have died since America attacked Afghanistan is more than the Americans who are dying in Afghanistan.
April 29, 2008 11:11 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 29, 2008 11:11
>> It was by choice that democratic government of Pakistan created and nurtured Taliban movement and installed Taliban government in Afghanistan.
It was by choice that America funded heavily and pushed the Pakistani government to train these militants against Russian forces. And as soon as the Russians left Afghanistan, America immediately backed-out.
These are poor and illiterate people, with nothing to do. There are no jobs, there is no industry...the country isn't even fertile enough to give good agricultural output. What we are seeing is, what happens when somebody creates a power out of such people...and later leaves them without any job, anything to do, and anyway to feed their families...but with guns in their hands!
April 29, 2008 11:04 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 29, 2008 11:04
Being a fundamentalist Islamic society, Pakistan can not help but be a ‘terror center’ of the world. It was by choice that Pakistan’s democratic government facilitated relocation of Osama bin Laden from Sudan to Afghanistan in 1996. It was by choice that democratic government of Pakistan created and nurtured Taliban movement and installed Taliban government in Afghanistan. Declassified US Intelligence Information Report (IIR) dated November 7, 1996 reiterates how "Pakistan's ISI is heavily involved in Afghanistan," but also details different roles various ISI officers play in Afghanistan. Stating that Pakistan uses sizable numbers of its Pashtun-based Frontier Corps in Taliban-run operations in Afghanistan, the document clarifies that, "these Frontier Corps elements are utilized in command and control; training; and when necessary – combat”. It was by choice that Pakistani ISI relocated Taliban to Pakistan after US overthrow of Taliban regime in Afghanistan.
While announcing cease-fire in Pakistan, Taliban spokesman Maulvi Omar had vowed to continue fighting U.S.-led NATO forces in Afghanistan and said that "The presence of the U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan is the mother of all ill and there will be no peace until their presence in the region has ended." Since Pakistani government signed a peace deal with Taliban in spite of this statement from Taliban spokesman, one can only deduct that Pakistani government agrees with him. While General Petraeus blames Iran endlessly for American servicemen dieing in Iraq, Pakistan does NOT get blamed for American servicemen dieing in Afghanistan by anybody in US administration or news media for that matter. On the contrary, Pakistan is rewarded with billions of dollars in US aid for the death of American servicemen in Afghanistan.
No amount of aid or understanding can cure a fundamentalist Islamic society.
April 29, 2008 9:32 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 29, 2008 09:32