Time for flexibility in Pak-US relationship
EDITORIAL (April 09 2008): In a letter to President George W. Bush, the Democrats have urged the administration to embark on a new relationship with Pakistan based on cooperation with institutions rather than individuals and to support the will of the Pakistani people as expressed on 18th February 2008 elections.
One would have assumed that such sagacious advice would have been the hallmark of the foreign policy of an administration that has, rhetorically, at least, committed itself to not only supporting democratic reforms throughout the world but also to using democracy as a vital tool in its fight against the growing menace of terrorism.
It is no wonder that allegations of double standards against the Bush administration have become the norm and it comes as no surprise that this administration has, time and again, refused to accept electoral results if they go against its own preconceived world view.
This was clearly evident in the electoral victory in Iran of Muslim hard-liners and of Hamas in Palestine. Unfortunately this has also been evident in the case of Pakistan post 18 February 2008 elections. There have been repeated forays by senior State Department officials, including Deputy Secretary of State Negroponte, as well as hectic efforts by senior US embassy staff in Islamabad to meet with the new political leadership.
This has even included a visit by the US Ambassador to meet the MQM leader resident in the UK. The agenda of these meetings does not appear to have deviated from a focus that emerged a little after 9/11 in spite of considerable change in the ground realities since: support for President Musharraf and to ensure that the policy framework of the war on terror does not change.
The State Department policy with respect to its war on terror is clearly flawed as reflected by the fact that the house of policy cards painstakingly built by the Bush administration seems to be crumbling with all pro-Bush world leaders being ousted from power through the ballot box.
In this context, the electoral defeat of PML (Q) supportive of President Musharraf is not an exception but the norm. In addition, the US Senate and the House are now controlled by the Democrats. The State Department would, therefore, do well to take note of three pertinent facts with respect to Pakistan.
First, the US administration has shown a marked reluctance to deal with PML (N). This maybe attributed to the fact that the Presidency in Islamabad considers only PML (N) opposed to Pervez Musharraf continuation in office. Mian Nawaz Sharif, the leader of the PML (N), the second largest party in Parliament, continues to be seen by the US policy planners as a religious conservative because of his past association with religious parties - an association that was critical for him at a time of deep rivalry and mistrust with the Pakistan People's Party.
That this is no longer the case has been ignored by the Bush administration. Illogically, the Bush administration does not appear to have considered that it is the need of military rulers, invariably opposed by the liberal elements in the country, to seek a coalition with the religious right as a means to legitimize their power. President Musharraf was no exception as his by now infamous deal with the MMA clearly proves.
Second, PML (N) has won the largest number of seats in the Punjab, and will form the government in that province. Punjab, by itself, maybe considered a medium income region. According to the thinking of the US as well as the Pakistan government during the past eight years, fundamentalism and, by now its concomitant evil, terrorism, is associated with poverty and illiteracy that require large injections of assistance to neutralise the threat.
By this definition the areas that breed fundamentalism and terrorism are not in the Punjab but in our underdeveloped areas, including border areas with Afghanistan. To alienate the government of Punjab, therefore, is unlikely to serve US interests in the region.
And, finally, even the Bush administration, now concerned with its legacy, has been forced to accept that its strategy on the war on terror has not succeeded. It has relied on short term gains in terms of number of attacks each day by insurgents as a measure of success, however people living in Iraq, Afghanistan as well as border areas of Pakistan have witnessed rising civilian fatalities through the use of military force which, in turn, has increased the support for the terrorists.
It is relevant to note that even Jonathan Powell, Chief of Staff of Britain's former Prime Minister, Tony Blair, recently noted that without dialogue the menace of terrorism was unlikely to be resolved as the Northern Ireland experience of the British government showed.
The need of the hour is flexibility and the Bush administration, as advised by the Democrats in their letter, as well as our Presidency must show a measure of this critical element to meet their stated objectives: to bow down to the wishes of the people, make the world a safer place and for the Presidency to make Pakistan a strong, independent and viable state.
Business Recorder [Pakistan's First Financial Daily]
