The recent NATO attack that killed 24 Pakistani soldiers has led Pakistani politicians and military leaders to once again reassess their country's relationship with the United States and, more generally, the West. The Pakistani army claims the NATO attack lasted two hours, even after its commanders pleaded with the coalition forces to stop. NATO officials promise an investigation and maintain the airstrikes were in response to fire from the Pakistani side. American officials fear retaliation for the attack might come in the form of decreased Pakistani cooperation in the war in Afghanistan, especially as troops are preparing to leave and the US seeks to stabilize the region before its exit. In light of these events, the United States and other Western powers also must study their current strategy in Pakistan seriously and honestly.
Though Pakistan and the US have been partners in the war against terror since 9/11, the Pakistani populace has long been suspicious of America's ulterior motives and what at times feels like disregard of their autonomy and sovereign rights. Some news outlets have reported that wide segments of the army, government, and the larger population view the US and NATO in hostile terms while looking at the Afghan Taliban more favorably. Since 2001, 35,000 Pakistani citizens have been killed due to "terror" related violence, further decreasing popular support for the Pakistan-NATO alliance.
As combat troops prepare to leave Afghanistan, US officials are particularly worried about the resilience of insurgents in the FAFTA of northwest Pakistan. This concern is even more pronounced as Pakistan has threatened to close its western border to trucks delivering NATO supplies to Afghanistan and has demanded that the US abandon a Pakistani air base used to launch drone strikes. However, American and other policymakers should acknowledge that it is unlikely the continued cooperation of Pakistan will do much to solve the insurgency problem, even if Pakistan were to retract its recent demands. The Pakistani army has shown that it is largely unable and unwilling to act against the insurgents' safe havens in this area. Many analysts have also noted that Pakistan's policy of nonconfrontation is due to their calculations regarding the likelihood that such groups will play an important role in post-war Afghanistan. Additionally, the United States cannot act in the area without Pakistan's permission.
Given the democratic movements that have occurred elsewhere in the region, policymakers must also acknowledge that the Pakistani military's cooperation on foreign policy goals comes at the expense of domestic political openings and reforms that are crucial to a stable state. US support of Musharaff's military dictatorship in the early years of the war on terror set a poor precedent and emphasized security over the social and political wellbeing of the Pakistani people. Though Pakistan has accepted billions of dollars in aid from the U.S., the funds have done little to change its citizens' opinion of America and have strengthened the perception that Pakistan's autonomy is continually challenged. The United States' alliance with the Pakistani military despite strident anti-Americanism in most of the country does not guarantee the accomplishment of Western goals or future peace.
Victory is unlikely in Afghanistan, and unrealistic hopes of final progress should not determine the relationship between Pakistan and the United States while further alienating the Pakistani people. The recent NATO attacks only underline the risks inherent in the uneasy alliance. Most Pakistanis do not view the status quo as a partnership but as a dependency relationship in which they are unfortunately tethered to a power that exploits their country. The US is right to seek to leave an Afghanistan with some prospects of survival; however, it is very possible that any prospects of future cooperation with a Pakistan in desperate need of political and economic reforms have been damaged in pursuit of an unrealistic goal.
Kara Kingma is an MA student at the Josef Korbel School of International Studies, University of Denver.
- 2
December 2, 2011
Adam Thew, University of Edinburgh, Bronze Contributor (19)
If the democratic revolutions across the Arab world have taught us anything, it is surely that this change can only come effectively from within the country itself, with attempts at reform based upon external imposition of change resulting in a great deal more bloodshed and reduced legitimacy in the eyes of native population.
Certainly there seems a groundswell of support for reformist figures such as Imran Khan, who himself has been openly critical of both the nature of the U.S.' actions Pakistan and the political corruption at the heart of the current regime.
It will be interesting to see if the recent military incidents which you highlight can be converted into political capital and provide a platform for serious reform through figures such as Khan. Of course I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on this.