third eye
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2008
- Messages
- 18,519
- Reaction score
- 13
- Country
- Location
Contradictions in Pak-US ties
Though America publicly claims that Pakistan is its indispensible ally in the context of Afghan conflict, Bruce Riedel, a former presidential adviser, puts forth interesting, provocative and self contradictory disclosures in his latest book Avoiding Armageddon: America, India and Pakistan to the Brink and Back. He writes: ...in Afghanistan, the US and its allied troops are fighting proxy war with Pakistan...Pakistan is perhaps the only country in the world that negotiated its existence on table without any army or insurgency. Dismembered in 1971, Pakistan became a nuclear power after that. But Pakistan cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons because religious fundamentalism is taking root there.
This is yet another book in the long list, which portrays Pakistan as a dangerous country. It carries forth the beaten line that Pakistan is dangerous for the world community because it is the only Muslim country that has nuclear bombs. Riedel confesses that US is pushing for Pakistans exclusion from world community and a number of insurgencies are being encouraged in Pakistan so that it is reduced to the level of a protectorate State. The efforts to destabilize it have been going at full throttle, Riedel confesses.
John Kerry during his recent visit to Pakistan said: I want to emphasize the relationship is not defined simply by the threats we face, it is not only a relationship about combating terrorism, it is about supporting the people of Pakistan, particularly helping at this critical moment for Pakistan's economic revival...It is also no secret that along this journey in the last few years weve experienced a few differences.
Of drone attacks, Kerry said, I think the President (Obama) has a very real timeline and we hope it's going to be very, very soon. However, Michael Kugelman, an analyst at the Woodrow Wilson International Centre, said he believed Washington had no intention of ending drone strikes in Pakistan before the end of 2014. Back home, US officials also immediately sought to downplay Kerrys remarks. The US State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki said that the number of drone strikes had declined owing to the drawdown of American troops from Afghanistan and because of progress in curtailing the al Qaeda threat. Today the secretary referenced the changes that we expect to take place in that programme over the course of time, but there is no exact timeline to provide, she stated.
On the other side, when asked whether Pakistan wanted the United States to curtail the strikes, foreign affairs adviser, Sartaj Aziz, said, We are asking them to stop it, not just curtail it.
Kerry announced re-initiation of the US-Pakistan Strategic Dialogue, focused on security, economic and development issues, which broke down in 2010. Pakistans Energy minister has said that Secretary Kerry has indicated about the possibility of Civil Nuclear deal between the two countries akin to the Indo-US Agreement. Kerry said that the US will extend all-out assistance to Pakistan to help execute more power projects and overcome energy crisis.
Kerry is known for his comparatively soft corner for Pakistan.
He was instrumental in pushing through a controversial five-year US aid plan to Pakistan notoriously remembered as called Kerry-Lugar Bill (Kerry Lugar Burman Act). This legislation became quite unpopular in Pakistan due to intrusive implementation and monitoring strings attached to it. Though, out of the US$ 7 billion, nearly half has already been disbursed, it has not improved Americas public rating in Pakistan.
While the issue of extremist groups operating in Pakistan is a constant irritant in the Pak-US relations, the US Congress was told about American contradictions while handling the Taliban in Afghanistan. Mr John Sopko Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction, in a covering letter accompanying a 236-page report (SIGAR audit 13-15) wrote: I am deeply troubled that the US military can pursue; attack and even kill terrorists and their supporters, but that some in the US government believe we cannot prevent these same people from receiving a government contract. He identified 46 such cases in his report!
Another point of contention between the two counties is Iran-Pakistan gas pipe line project. America has been pressuring Pakistan to abandon the project which Pakistan signed with Iran in 2009.
When this project was signed, natural gas was not part of the US sanctions statute; it was added to the sanctions list in 2013. America has shown flexibility towards implementing sanction law with India and other Central Asian republics, who are currently meeting their energy needs from Iran. For IP project, this law is any way not relevant, because agreement was signed before the amended American law was enacted.
Bilateral relations between the two countries are poised to stay tumultuous for short to medium term. On its part Pakistan is making all out effort to bridge the gap between the Afghan Taliban and America on one hand and Afghan Taliban and Karzai administration on the other hand. As the time is running out, Taliban, America and Karzai government need to narrow down their perceptional gaps about post 2014 Afghanistan.
America owes a responsibility to the international community to leave behind a stable Afghanistan. Alongside America, onus also squarely rests on the United Nations Security Council. It authorised the entry of foreign forces in to Afghanistan, it must come forth to manage the fallout of exit of these forces. UNSC should start its in-house deliberations to evolve a backup contingency plan to induct its peace keeping mission if America-Taliban-Karzai rapprochement does not materialize. In such an eventuality, the 2014 elections in Afghanistan should be under UN supervision. Pakistan and America need to discuss this eventuality and formulate a timeline based workable plan of action to take UNSC on board, say by mid 2014.
Gap between Pakistans state policy and public aspirations in the context of Pak-US relations is quite wide. Moreover, public sentiment is hostile about the areas of divergence, and indifferent regarding areas of convergence. Most important issue that America and Pakistan are conjointly seized with at the moment is post 2014 Afghanistan.
And this is the area where gap between public sentiment and state policy is the maximum. There is need for a serious effort to narrow down this gap. It is in the interest of America and Pakistan to sustain functional bilateral relationship and cooperate in stabilizing Afghanistan. It is a complicated and important relationship. Both, the US and Pakistan have much to gain by fixing their relationship.
The writer is Consultant, Policy & Strategic Response, IPRI
Though America publicly claims that Pakistan is its indispensible ally in the context of Afghan conflict, Bruce Riedel, a former presidential adviser, puts forth interesting, provocative and self contradictory disclosures in his latest book Avoiding Armageddon: America, India and Pakistan to the Brink and Back. He writes: ...in Afghanistan, the US and its allied troops are fighting proxy war with Pakistan...Pakistan is perhaps the only country in the world that negotiated its existence on table without any army or insurgency. Dismembered in 1971, Pakistan became a nuclear power after that. But Pakistan cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons because religious fundamentalism is taking root there.
This is yet another book in the long list, which portrays Pakistan as a dangerous country. It carries forth the beaten line that Pakistan is dangerous for the world community because it is the only Muslim country that has nuclear bombs. Riedel confesses that US is pushing for Pakistans exclusion from world community and a number of insurgencies are being encouraged in Pakistan so that it is reduced to the level of a protectorate State. The efforts to destabilize it have been going at full throttle, Riedel confesses.
John Kerry during his recent visit to Pakistan said: I want to emphasize the relationship is not defined simply by the threats we face, it is not only a relationship about combating terrorism, it is about supporting the people of Pakistan, particularly helping at this critical moment for Pakistan's economic revival...It is also no secret that along this journey in the last few years weve experienced a few differences.
Of drone attacks, Kerry said, I think the President (Obama) has a very real timeline and we hope it's going to be very, very soon. However, Michael Kugelman, an analyst at the Woodrow Wilson International Centre, said he believed Washington had no intention of ending drone strikes in Pakistan before the end of 2014. Back home, US officials also immediately sought to downplay Kerrys remarks. The US State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki said that the number of drone strikes had declined owing to the drawdown of American troops from Afghanistan and because of progress in curtailing the al Qaeda threat. Today the secretary referenced the changes that we expect to take place in that programme over the course of time, but there is no exact timeline to provide, she stated.
On the other side, when asked whether Pakistan wanted the United States to curtail the strikes, foreign affairs adviser, Sartaj Aziz, said, We are asking them to stop it, not just curtail it.
Kerry announced re-initiation of the US-Pakistan Strategic Dialogue, focused on security, economic and development issues, which broke down in 2010. Pakistans Energy minister has said that Secretary Kerry has indicated about the possibility of Civil Nuclear deal between the two countries akin to the Indo-US Agreement. Kerry said that the US will extend all-out assistance to Pakistan to help execute more power projects and overcome energy crisis.
Kerry is known for his comparatively soft corner for Pakistan.
He was instrumental in pushing through a controversial five-year US aid plan to Pakistan notoriously remembered as called Kerry-Lugar Bill (Kerry Lugar Burman Act). This legislation became quite unpopular in Pakistan due to intrusive implementation and monitoring strings attached to it. Though, out of the US$ 7 billion, nearly half has already been disbursed, it has not improved Americas public rating in Pakistan.
While the issue of extremist groups operating in Pakistan is a constant irritant in the Pak-US relations, the US Congress was told about American contradictions while handling the Taliban in Afghanistan. Mr John Sopko Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction, in a covering letter accompanying a 236-page report (SIGAR audit 13-15) wrote: I am deeply troubled that the US military can pursue; attack and even kill terrorists and their supporters, but that some in the US government believe we cannot prevent these same people from receiving a government contract. He identified 46 such cases in his report!
Another point of contention between the two counties is Iran-Pakistan gas pipe line project. America has been pressuring Pakistan to abandon the project which Pakistan signed with Iran in 2009.
When this project was signed, natural gas was not part of the US sanctions statute; it was added to the sanctions list in 2013. America has shown flexibility towards implementing sanction law with India and other Central Asian republics, who are currently meeting their energy needs from Iran. For IP project, this law is any way not relevant, because agreement was signed before the amended American law was enacted.
Bilateral relations between the two countries are poised to stay tumultuous for short to medium term. On its part Pakistan is making all out effort to bridge the gap between the Afghan Taliban and America on one hand and Afghan Taliban and Karzai administration on the other hand. As the time is running out, Taliban, America and Karzai government need to narrow down their perceptional gaps about post 2014 Afghanistan.
America owes a responsibility to the international community to leave behind a stable Afghanistan. Alongside America, onus also squarely rests on the United Nations Security Council. It authorised the entry of foreign forces in to Afghanistan, it must come forth to manage the fallout of exit of these forces. UNSC should start its in-house deliberations to evolve a backup contingency plan to induct its peace keeping mission if America-Taliban-Karzai rapprochement does not materialize. In such an eventuality, the 2014 elections in Afghanistan should be under UN supervision. Pakistan and America need to discuss this eventuality and formulate a timeline based workable plan of action to take UNSC on board, say by mid 2014.
Gap between Pakistans state policy and public aspirations in the context of Pak-US relations is quite wide. Moreover, public sentiment is hostile about the areas of divergence, and indifferent regarding areas of convergence. Most important issue that America and Pakistan are conjointly seized with at the moment is post 2014 Afghanistan.
And this is the area where gap between public sentiment and state policy is the maximum. There is need for a serious effort to narrow down this gap. It is in the interest of America and Pakistan to sustain functional bilateral relationship and cooperate in stabilizing Afghanistan. It is a complicated and important relationship. Both, the US and Pakistan have much to gain by fixing their relationship.
The writer is Consultant, Policy & Strategic Response, IPRI
