U.S.-Pakistan Relations: Inseparable but Chaotic

Published in Zaobao
(Singapore) on 15 April 2011
by Huang Qishu (link to originallink to original)
Translated from by Reena Perumal. Edited by Hoishan Chan.
The U.S. and Pakistan are the archetypal strange bedfellows. To borrow an expression from the poet Li Yu, the two countries are “inseparable but chaotic.”

At the end of March, when interviewed by ABC News, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said that U.S.-Pakistan relations were difficult and challenging. She made this comment off the back of the Pakistani government canceling strategic talks regarding cooperative efforts between the U.S., Pakistan and Afghanistan originally scheduled for March 26 in Brussels. Clinton said that Pakistan is facing difficulties in “[contending] with its own internal extremist threat,” but that the U.S. is always trying to “[develop] good lines of communication, good opportunities for cooperation.”

The talks were canceled as a result of an American drone missile strike on a meeting of tribal leaders discussing a mine dispute in a tribal area of Northwestern Pakistan. Nineteen of the 44 participating civilians were killed, leading to protests from the Pakistani government and military (the Pakistani air force had previously instituted a no-fly alert on unmanned U.S. aircraft). This was the account of the incident according to Pakistan — according to U.S. intelligence, of the 19 killed, 12 were leaders in the Pakistani Taliban.

On March 26, at the annual Brussels Forum for American and European government and community leaders with the theme “Bridging the Trust Deficit with Pakistan,” the U.S. envoy to Pakistan and Afghanistan, Marc Grossman, said this of U.S.-Pakistan relations: “The purpose of the relationship is to make Pakistanis more secure, and Americans and Europeans more secure, and to make Pakistanis more prosperous, that’s something we’re after.”

Grossman also conveyed his regret over unnecessary civilian casualties in the drone strike, saying, “You know when civilians are killed, we regret it. We deeply regret it.” In response, Pakistan’s ambassador to the E.U., Jalil Abbas Jilani, also noted in Brussels that Grossman’s statement was merely an expression of regret, not amounting to an apology. That said, Jilani did not officially represent the Pakistani government at the forum; it was the renowned Pakistani journalist Ahmed Rashid who expressed regret over his government’s absence from the forum.

On April 5, the Obama administration issued to Congress a detailed 38-page report on the situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan. On the one hand, the report approved of the Pakistani military and its efforts against Taliban fighters. On the other hand, the Pakistani government was criticized for not having put enough effort into countering the Taliban. As the report stated, “there remains no clear path towards defeating the insurgency in Pakistan.”

An example touched on in the report is the one-sided development of coordination centers along the Pakistani-Afghan border. These coordination centers are intended to facilitate the timely reporting of cross-border enemy movements. Since 2008, four such centers have been established on the Afghanistan half of the border, but as of now, none have been established in Pakistan. This example reflects the lack of transparency demonstrated by the Pakistani military.

The White House issues these reports to Congress biannually, and experts have observed that this recent report, in particular, puts more blame on the Pakistani government. Upon reading the report, a Senate staff member commented, “It does sound like an expression of frustration that goes beyond previous reports.”

Such a pessimistic report has been released just as the Obama administration intends to pull 100,000 American troops from the front lines amid the increasing unpopularity among the American public of the wars in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The counterterrorist situation in the region has become more complicated.

Two Representatives Take the Opportunity to Propose the Improvement of Relations with India

At a congressional hearing on April 2, New York Democratic congressman and recipient of India’s Padma Bhushan award, Gary Ackerman, said that he had become weary of 10 years of the U.S. government’s cursory criticism of Afghanistan and Pakistan. “I doubt the leaders in the Afghan government and the Pakistani government are going to do anything except pursue their own narrow, venal self-interests.” He went on to say, controversially, that the Pakistani military and intelligence agency was cooperating with the U.S. by day while illicitly working with anti-American terrorist groups by night.

His colleague, California Republican Dana Rohrabacher also spoke up, criticizing the government for its “irrational optimism.”

The two congressmen highlighted U.S.-India relations as the “one shining light” and the “brightest light” respectively. Rohrabacher also said that “[he] would hope that we have the intelligence to work and to make sure that India is our best friend in that part of the world” as “Pakistan is committed to Islam … [while] India is dedicated to prosperity for their people.”

On April 8, India’s Daily Pioneer published an editorial entitled “White House admits aid to Pakistan wasted.” The editorial opined that, no matter how much U.S. aid is spent, Pakistan will not turn against the Taliban and other terrorist groups it is on good terms with. The editorial also agreed with Ackerman’s belief that “our [U.S.] money is not buying anything that’s deep or durable.” Finally, the Daily Pioneer also expressed the desire to see the Obama administration take up the congressmen’s advice to build better relations with India.

British Prime Minister David Cameron of the Conservative Party — who during a visit to India last year criticized Pakistan for its “export of terror” — said on April 5, “I would struggle to find a country that is more in Britain’s interests to see progress and succeed than Pakistan.” He then called for a new beginning in British-Pakistani relations. It seems like he, too, was on the side of the White House lobbyists during his latest visit to Pakistan.

Maintaining international relations between major powers is not akin to picking out clothes, with the capacity for immediate change as and when desired. The U.S. knows that cultivating a strategic partnership with Pakistan is not easy, but strengthening the relationship has been difficult. The economic cost is inevitable — whether or not it is worthwhile is something that needs to be considered carefully. As Cameron said, “Maintaining strong ties in spite of adversity is infinitely preferable to having to deal with a hostile Pakistan.”*

The writer is a retired scholar from India, currently living in Chicago.


*Editor’s note: This quote, while accurately translated, could not be verified.


美国与巴基斯坦之间是典型的“同床异梦”伙伴关系,正像李后主诗中说的:“剪不断、理还乱”。

  3月底,美国国务卿希拉莉在接受ABC电视台采访时说,美国与巴基斯坦的关系既困难又具有挑战性。她是在巴基斯坦政府取消原来决定于3月26日在布鲁塞尔举行美、巴、阿(富汗)三国战略合作会议后说的。希拉莉表示了解,巴基斯坦在“控制自身极端主义威胁时”有其难处,但美国总是设法“开发良好的交通渠道、良好的合作机会”。

  三国会议无法举行是由于3月17日美国无人飞机在巴基斯坦西北部落地区对一个讨论矿山纠纷的部落首领会议扔下炸弹,使得19名与会者在内的44个平民丧生,引起巴国政府与军方严重抗议(巴国空军曾一度对美国无人飞机实行“禁飞”警戒)。这是巴基斯坦方面的叙述,根据美国情报部门的信息,那19名炸死者中,至少12人是巴基斯坦塔利班领袖。

  3月26日,在布鲁塞尔举行的一年一度的欧美政府及公众领袖的以“弥补与巴基斯坦信任差距”(Bridging the Trust Deficit with Pakistan)为主题的权威性国际论坛,美国驻巴基斯坦与阿富汗特使格洛斯曼(Marc Grossman)在会上说,美国与巴基斯坦的关系“目的是要使巴基斯坦人更安全,使美国人与欧洲人更安全,以及使巴基斯坦人更繁荣。这就是我们所追求的。”

  格洛斯曼在讲话中对无人飞机误伤平民表示抱歉,他说:“在任何地方发生平民伤亡我们都深表歉意”。巴基斯坦驻欧盟大使季拉尼(Jalil Abbas Jillani)在布鲁塞尔评论说,格洛斯曼的话只是一般表达,不是什么道歉。季拉尼也对论坛没有巴国政府代表的声音,只有著名新闻记者、巴基斯坦人拉西德(Ahmed Rashid)批评巴国政府的长篇言论表示遗憾。

  4月5日,奥巴马政府向国会提供了一份38页的有关“阿富巴战场”形势的详尽报告,一方面赞扬巴基斯坦军队在边境打击塔利班“抗击者”所作的努力,另一方面又认为巴基斯坦政府对塔利班的打击力度不够,报告悲观地说:“在巴基斯坦看不到明显的击败抗击者的前景”。

  报告中谈到的一个例子是在巴基斯坦和阿富汗边境建立“协作中心”(coordination center)的不平衡发展。这种“协作中心”的任务是及时报道跨国境敌人的行踪。从2008年至今,在阿富汗国境已经建立起4个这样的“中心”,但在巴国境内至今一个这样的中心也没有。这例子影射巴基斯坦军方不够透明。

  行家认为这份白宫照例的每年两度向国会提交的报告比前两份报告更多地怪罪于巴基斯坦政府。一位参议院的工作人员看了报告后评论说:“它与前两份报告相比似乎变成发泄灰心丧气情绪”。

  正当奥巴马政府看到“阿富巴”战事在美国国内越来越不得人心而打算于今年7月从从前线撤走十万作战部队之际,发表这样的、得出灰溜溜结论的报告,使“阿富巴战场”整个打恐形势变得复杂了。

两议员借机提出应向印度靠拢

  民主党纽约众议员、印度二等莲花奖获得者艾克尔曼(Gary Ackerman)在4月2日国会听证会上说,他十年来已经听厌了政府批评阿富汗与巴基斯坦所使用的不痛不痒的腔调,“我怀疑阿富汗政府与巴基斯坦政府的领袖除了实现自己狭隘、贪婪的目的外不会有什么作为”。他毫不讳言地说,巴基斯坦三军情报局是白天和美国合作而晚上与反美恐怖分子幽会。

  他的同事、加利福尼亚民主党众议员罗赤拉巴彻尔(Dana Rohrabacher)也同时发难,批评政府“不理性地乐观”。

  两位民主党众议员都赞扬美国与印度关系是“唯一亮光”、是“最明亮的光”。罗赤拉巴彻尔说:“我希望我们明智地使得印度成为我们在世界那一部分(南亚)最好的朋友”,因为“印度致力于其人民的繁荣”而“巴基斯坦却沉溺于伊斯兰教信仰”。

  印度《先锋报》4月8日以“白宫承认援助巴基斯坦是冤枉花钱”(White House admits aid to Pakistan wasted)为题发表社论。社论说,不管你花多少钱,巴基斯坦是不会跟塔利班与其他恐怖组织的朋友开战的。它欣赏美国众议员艾克尔曼的评语:“我们(美国)的钱什么深刻或持续(的成果)都没买到”。它希望奥巴马政权接受美国国会议员的忠告而向印度靠拢。

  去年访印时批评巴基斯坦“输出恐怖”的英国保守党首相卡梅伦4月5日到达巴基斯坦首都时说:“英国认为它与巴基斯坦的关系至为重要”,号召两国重新开始友好相处。他好像是带了帮白宫当说客的任务而去巴基斯坦访问的。

  大国之间的关系不是像穿衣服一样,想换就换。美国知道和巴基斯坦做战略伙伴不是易事,但必须强为其难;耗费金钱在所难免,是否值得,还须看正反两面的代价。正像卡梅伦所说:“与巴基斯坦保持艰难的伙伴关系要远远胜过对付敌对的巴基斯坦”。

  

作者是从印度退休的学者,现居芝加哥
This post appeared on the front page as a direct link to the original article with the above link .

Hot this week

Indonesia: Trump’s Chaos Strategy Is Hurting His Allies, Not Just His Rivals

Sri Lanka: Epstein Files, Mossad and Kompromat Diplomacy

Turkey: Musk versus the Machine: Disrupting the 2-Party System

Germany: Trump Is Capable of Learning

Germany: Bad Prospects

Topics

Turkey: Conflicting Messages to Syria: US Supports Integrity while Israel Attacks

Japan: The Role of a Diplomatic Attitude To Maintain the International Order

Russia: The 3rd-Party Idea as a Growing Trend*

Germany: Trump’s Tariffs: China Acts, Europe Reacts

Germany: Trump Is Capable of Learning

Germany: Nerve-Wracking Back and Forth

Indonesia: Trump Needs a Copy Editor

Indonesia: Trump’s Chaos Strategy Is Hurting His Allies, Not Just His Rivals

Related Articles

Singapore: Trump’s America Brings More Chaos, but Not Necessarily More Danger

Singapore: No Ukraine Cease-fire – Putin Has Called Trump’s Bluff

Singapore: Lessons from the Trump-Zelenskyy Meltdown – for Friends and Foes

Singapore: In Trump and Musk’s America, Echoes of China’s Past Emerge