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.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.