Pakistan's geopolitical position has also been its greatest problem -
located between south, west and central Asia,
the country has consistently served as a platform from which foreign interests
were played out and defended. Consequently Pakistan's domestic destiny has
often been hostage to the foreign policy priorities of other, mostly western
governments. Most notable, and at the origin of today's instability was the
American involvement in the region during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.
The rise of the Taliban to fight the evil of the day, namely communism - was
supported and funded by the US.
In the long run, the Soviet empire might have thus been defeated, however the
remnants of this conflict have caused havoc in Afghanistan ever since. Pakistan, the
neighbouring state has been drawn further into this problem, as in the shadow
of Islamic insurgencies its border has become the theatre of the ‘war on
terror'.
Pakistan's challenges today are numerous -
a weak civilian government - seen by many as utterly accountable to the West, a
crumbling economy, a war on Pakistan's
western border and a domestic conflict with hundreds of thousands of internally
displaced people (IDP). The primary
threat emanating from this situation is the wider radicalization of the
ordinary Pakistani population. Many analysts and policy makers focus on Pakistan's western educated and English speaking elite, yet ignore the 80% of the population that are the rural and urban poor who have little in common with the governing classes. Western policy - led by the US
and followed by the EU is utterly inadequate largely due to a lack of
understanding of the realities on the ground.
The anti-insurgency operation in Swat has
created a domestic crisis of IDP. Most of these people are angry at having had
to leave their homes, but have experienced Taliban rule and are supportive of
the Pakistani army's endeavours to rid the region of insurgents. This window of
support is however unlikely to last very long. As living conditions in camps
deteriorate and the government is not seen to be doing much to alleviate the
suffering, the youths especially are likely to radicalize. It is now time to
make sure that the living standards of the IDP do not deteriorate any further -
especially given the summer heat and the arrival of the Monsoon - and that they
are able to return home quickly. Government support with regard to re-building
destroyed schools and other public services is essential. Yet the government
has no money due to the deteriorating economic situation.
Pakistan's
economy has been in free fall for a number of months. Inflation is so high that
the majority of rural and urban poor have had to cut at least a meal a day in
order to survive. The government is not seen as addressing these issues. Again
radicalization is more likely amongst people who are hungry and who perceive
their government to have forgotten them.
The war on the western border against the
Taliban has created a true identity crisis for many more conservative, mostly
rural Pakistanis. Fighting Muslim brethren in alliance with the United States
discredits the government, increases radicalization and raises support for
islamist groups.
In times of trouble Pakistan should
be able to expect support from its allies and friends. However, despite being
an ally of the west in the ‘war on terror', western policy towards Pakistan seems
intent on making things more difficult rather than easier. This has been
compounded by the new Obama administration:
- The new term ‘AfPak' points towards a vision whereby the problems in Afghanistan and Pakistan are put into the same bag. Not only is this deeply offensive to the Pakistani people and government - whose state, unlike that of Afghanistan was never a failed state - but it also glosses over the fact that both sets of problems are very different. The fact that there is a Pashtun tribal system on both sides of the border is not a sufficient reason.
- The continuous drone attacks on Pakistani soil have killed many civilians and few insurgents. It is a strange war where one ally bombs the other. The weak civilian government aside, the wider Pakistani population sees these attacks as a casus belli against Pakistan and nothing has fuelled anti-American and anti-western feelings more.
Western policies seem to have been oblivious to the sentiments of the wider Pakistani population. However a deeper understanding of the views across Pakistan and a radical policy shift is needed if the ordinary people of Pakistan are to be brought on board. Investments in order to stabilize the economy is one way forward. Pakistan needs aid to develop its state education and health systems. Institutions for good governance also need support. At this juncture however the western priorities seem to lie with the war - not with helping Pakistani civil society. Therefore it seems that continued western involvement is more likely to fuel an anti-western reaction and increase the fault lines within Pakistani society, rather than stabilize Pakistan.
Dr Marie Lall is a South Asia specialist, a Senior Lecturer at the IoE, University of London and an Associate Fellow at the Asia Programme at Chatham House
Related Materials from the Atlantic Community:
- 10
July 1, 2009
Raphael Lefevre
Indeed, if Western involvement in Pakistan has been far from altruistic and has not always been effective in enabling the civilian governement of Pakistan to take effective measures to counter the rise of the Talebans in the tribal areas, we should nonetheless stress the sharp ambition of the Obama Administration to modify this pattern and this is best examplified by the Kerry Lugar Bill which once it will be voted will hand out more than $ 1.5 billion a year during 5 years to Pakistan's civilian governement, a sum which represents a multiplication by 3 of the amount of aid received by Pakistan in recent years.
Contrary to what Dr Marie Lall seems to think, I hardly believe that providing such a large amount of money to a civilian governement so it may more effectively alleviate the suffering of IDPs is a hawkish foreign policy.
Also, about a week ago at the EU - Pakistan Summit, the European Union has agreed to hand out over 100 million euros to the Pakistani governement, half of which will go directly to the victims of recent fighting in the Swat Valley. Hardly a hawkish move as well...
We may regret the limited scope of these aid packages delivered by Western governements but it is nonetheless there and one should acknowledge it rather than turning a blind eye on it.
Overall, I think that the emergence of an actual strategy guiding US and EU foreign policies in Pakistan is a move towards the right direction. Indeed, beyond fostering a constructive dialogue between the Pakistani governement and the West, it enables for a more sustained cooperation between all actors, a pattern which is likely to greatly benefit Pakistan at the economic, humanitarian and security levels.
For example, if the Pakistani Army is itself partly to be blamed for the deteriorating humanitarian situation in the North West Frontier Province (NWFP), one should not overlook the fact that this army was and still is configured today for the fighting of inter-state wars and not domestic insurrections. As the recent EU - Pakistan Summit has shown, Pakistani officials are eager for European help in counter terrorism and policing so as to modernize the Pakistani army and to avoid unnecessary civilian casualties when counter-insurgency operations are being carried out. This is only one example of how positive a better cooperation between the various actors in the region should be viewed.
As long as there will be a common interest between the Pakistani governement and the West in fighting an internal ennemy within Pakistan that is progressively eroding the very sovereignty of the Pakistani state on its own territory (cf situation in South Waziristan which has been abandonned to ruthless warlords like Baitullah Mehsud), I modestly and perhaps a bit naively believe that Western involvement in Pakistan will not stand for the imposition of unilateral, hawkish policies as described by Dr Marie Lall in the above article.