Pakistani-American Relations at a Crossroads
Fouad Ajami | Policy Review | January 2011
Should
American forces truly begin their drawdown in Afghanistan
in the summer of 2011, Washington's relations
to the other states of South East Asia will
undergo profound change as well. This appears particularly worrisome in the
case of Pakistan.
Western government circles fear that the country will descend into chaos, once Islamabad loses its importance to Washington. In order to prevent such a
development, the United States
would do well to review its relations with Islamabad and encourage the Pakistanis to
take greater responsibility for developments in their own country.
In the
past, Pakistan's
image as a country teetering on the verge of collapse has served its ruling
elite. It was content to create the impression that only ever new financial
assistance allowed for the maintenance of law and order in Pakistan, which
after all possesses nuclear weapons. Nevertheless, only Lahore
and Islamabad today are relatively calm, while Karachi is plagued by
continued unrest. Beyond the major cities, the country is ruled by tribal
leaders, religious fanatics, and lawless bandits. National unrest rages in the province of Baluchistan that extends over 40 percent
of the territory. The local population regards the state as an edifice invented
by their old enemies (the Pashtuns and the Punjabis) with the goal of
subjugating the Baluchis. For most Pakistanis, however, Washington is still the number one enemy.
According to a poll conducted by the PEW
Research Center,
60 percent of the Pakistani population regards the United States as an enemy. The
large assistance payments - which have amounted to $18 billion since 2001 (in
addition to $7.5 billion in economic assistance and infrastructure buildup) -
have not changed these sentiments. The Pakistanis believe that this aid mostly
benefits the military, which unabashedly continues to suppress the development
of civil society. The situation did not change even after $450 million in US
humanitarian aid reached Pakistan
following last summer's devastating floods.
Nevertheless,
the situation is not as hopeless as many observers in western government
circles seem to fear. Pakistan
has a sophisticated middle class, a fairly independent judiciary, and an active
press. These are the forces that deserve support. In its efforts to reduce
Pakistani resentment, Washington
would be better advised to have Congress remove protectionist tariffs on
Pakistani textiles, instead of handing out aid payments. The textile industry
accounts for 60 percent of the country's exports and is responsible for 40
percent of all jobs in the manufacturing sector. But Pakistan itself also needs to
become more active: It needs to implement better tax collection measures. Today
only a fraction of taxes get paid. An economic upturn would allow the
Pakistanis to concentrate on their internal affairs. However, they will only
succeed in this, if they moderate their claims on Kashmir.
The Kashmir conflict will not be resolved any
time soon. It should not be allowed to continue to drain the country's already
scarce resources.
This
summary was prepared by
the Atlantic Community editorial team from "Pakistan
and America"
published here by Policy Review.
Sun, Jan 30th 2011, 05:08
Amarjyoti Acharya
The perceptual factors in South Asia, including Pakistan (this article as well as the history of Pakistan) involve many factors and involve the dynamics of the regional security complex that South Asia forms - with flailing states as the actors. The concerns are the spin-offs from the implosion of such a region, with the spectre of international terrorism looming large - even if seen operating in the future from amorphous cells with ambiguous structures - as scattered clusters.
The dis-engagement with such a scenario in mind helps in providing one a comprehension of the security needs of the future. One would imagine that a dialogue of development with such states should be carried on - while dis-engagement remains imperative for future security needs. A dialogue of development should be able to put the onus of responsibility on such states, even as encouraging such states to fulfil their development needs locally. The emphasis on Human Rights & transparency in governance - with education forming a crucial factor in development issues - become imperative for dealing with the future scenarios (while the security need would be in containing the export of states that may contribute to terrorism/arson elsewhere). Generally, the Chinese proverb that teaching a man how to fish is better than providing a man with a fish can not be under-estimated. Even as the addendum that teaching a man how to fish is neither imperative nor requires losing one's fishes (while teaching someone how to fish)!