Think Tank paper: Pakistan and US aid – Time to send the addict to rehab?

[Elmo]

Pakistan and US aid – Time to send the addict to rehab?



June 16, 2012 1:47 am


This article is based on the ideas presented in a discussion between Think Tank members of defence.pk


When Liaquat Ali Khan first stepped on to the tarmac of the New York airport in May 1950 (1), he could not have had predicted that his trip to the United States would be the beginning of the world’s most topsy-turvy relations between two nations.

Pakistan’s request for US economic and military aid, in return for its acquiesce to US requests during that visit, set a precedent for the foundation on which bilateral transactions between these nations are based 2. Mr Khan is famously quoted to have said: “If your country will guarantee our territorial integrity, I will not keep my army at all.” (2)

Sixty-two years on, Pakistani-US relations are scraping the bottom of the goodwill barrel for any hopes of recovery (3). Most recently, the US Congress has voted to further curb the one incentive that might get Pakistan to agree with US demands: economic aid (4).

Pakistan’s economy has been struggling since the global recession and the resulting slowdown of its consumer-based economic surge under the military government of Pervaiz Musharraf. An inept government, along with widespread corruption, has brought the country’s major industries and economic institutions crashing to the ground (5).

At this juncture, economic aid from the US is part of the lifeline holding Pakistan’s institutions financially afloat.

Further, Pakistan’s military relies extensively on US military hardware and financial support in its fight against terror within its borders. It would be unwise to deny that the Pakistani establishment has played a double game, allowing US access to strike in some areas of the country, and yet saving some sympathizers to fight in an ultimate end game. However, if this US support stops, Pakistan’s ability to continue to wage even this partially focused war, and provide some semblance of resistance to the extremism in the country, may very well end, bringing severe consequences for the region and beyond.

So what are Pakistan’s options?


At this point, some feel that Pakistan could try and repair relations with the United States so that it may continue to receive US economic support. This, however, is a difficult task. Pakistan’s Foreign Office has failed miserably against a very strong pro-Indian lobby in the US. Pakistan’s US mission has failed to convince the US media, as well as US lawmakers, that Pakistan is the main victim of terrorism and has suffered more than any other country as a direct result of siding with the US in its “War on Terror”.

Most articles in US newspapers imply that Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) is still secretly helping the Taliban who are active in Afghanistan. That perception is reinforced by the Pakistani media. Most of the guests invited to Pakistani TV programs do nothing but spew anti-American sentiments, completely ignoring that the US has provided Pakistan more aid than any other country of the world. A very large part of the population firmly believes in the many conspiracy theories that float around. They think that the US is out to destroy Pakistan because of its status as the only Islamic nation which holds nuclear weapons. Such sentiments are certainly known to those in Washington. And, so, the US response is not surprising as it has a concrete dimension, that is, the use of extremist ideas and proxies by Pakistan as policy tools.

Another suggestion is breaking with the US, making it easier for Pakistan to keep its strategic partnership with China alive, and, perhaps, enhancing it further. Pursuing a foreign policy independent of the US might lead to severe sanctions, but would it really be that bad for Pakistan?

In a television show, Maleeha Lodhi, former Pakistani ambassador to the US, claimed that Pakistan collected the highest revenues during 1989-2001, when it was under strict sanctions from the Western world. An aspect of this approach could be increased trade with China. The Pakistani government and business community could devise with the Chinese, a strategy to successfully compete with Indian businesses for the Chinese market thereby filling the financial void left by any cessation of US assistance. Such Chinese trade expansion, however, would not be quick. Implementation might require that a few years of extreme economic hardship be borne by all Pakistanis. And, there is no guarantee that China’s patience with Pakistan’s antics won’t wear thin, if it continues its current national security policies.

However, even if Pakistan is able to repair its relations to an extent with Washington, and US assistance resumes, this should be thought of as a short term measure. Pakistan must ensure that none of its institutions seeks a permanent entitlement to US taxpayer monies, nor becomes a parasite on the Chinese. Pakistan should focus on transit (non-NATO) and trade with China, Russia, India, Afghanistan and Iran. It should engage them to forge stable economic relationships that do not thrive on expecting financial assistance.

Good governance is also primary. A Pakistani system that affords representation, and above all, stability, within a framework provided by a leaner more energetic constitution, tied to a large disciplined political party, is one way to proceed. The military should focus its ISI on removing the extremists and on giving the future government breathing space to pursue better terms with all its neighbours.

Pakistan needs to rethink and rebuild itself into a truly representative nation for all its peoples, where the will of the people dictates foreign policy, and not the whims of a few. Only then will Pakistan’s bilateral relations with any nation, including the US, be fruitful and beneficial to all parties involved.

(Compiled by Oscar. With input from Fatman17, Muse, All-Green, Niaz, Aamir Hussain and Araz)

1. Photo Archive: Liaquat Ali Khan goes to the US (1950) by Pakistan Chronicle's collection – Photo Archive: Liaquat Ali Khan goes to the US (1950) by Pakistan Chronicle’s collection
2. Pakistan-USA ties: From Liaqat Ali Khan to Asif Zardari*|*LUBP – Pakistan-USA ties: From Liaqat Ali Khan to Asif Zardari*|*LUBP
3. U.S. – U.S.
4. US rejects majority of Pakistan – US rejects majority of Pakistan
5. The worst ever? | DAWN.COM – The worst ever? | DAWN.COM

 

[VCheng]

So the two choices are to try and repair relations with USA or to break them off completely.

It would interesting to have a pro and con debate on both of the choices. I feel quite strongly that it would be wiser to repair relations with USA, no matter how difficult the task has been made given recent events and actions by both sides.

 

[MastanKhan]

So the two choices are to try and repair relations with USA or to break them off completely.

It would interesting to have a pro and con debate on both of the choices. I feel quite strongly that it would be wiser to repair relations with USA, no matter how difficult the task has been made given recent events and actions by both sides.

Hi,

Ain't that a great choice---and see how much brain power went into it.

 

[Elmo]

Hi,

Ain't that a great choice---and see how much brain power went into it.

Sometimes its better to read the piece than jump to conclusions.

At least some brain power went into it, otherwise a couple of old steamers here are quite well-known for throwing tantrums only

MK- Got nothing to offer on the China aspect?

 

[lem34]

Sometimes Pakistanis forget we are just a pawn or small part of a bigger game(muse mentioned some guy who had written a paper on this strategy I think). The centre of the universe is not Pakistan. The only game in town is Russia China and America.

Americans have decided that it will rule the world through it's proxies. Pakistan is not one of the proxies. India is along with Israel Saudi etc. To this end America and her allies will use every trick in the book to invade and or encourage regime change to install govts that suit it's geo strategic goals.

In this regards only China and Russia can put a stop to this. As there is an attempt to hem and contain them. They are not doing us any favours. The line has been drawn. Syria has been chosen. Russia and China would throw Assad under a bus if the west and Sauds would back off Iran but so far Sauds are being intransigent.

The niche for Pakistan in all this and believe you me the powers to be in Pakistan realise this is for us to move closer to Russia China Iran maybe under the umbrella of the SCO. That is one of the reasons that Pakistan is standing firm on IP pipeline.

All we have to do is sit there and try to eliminate corruption educate our people etc. Long term India needs Pakistani transit routes. These will be available to China and her corporations. As a result Indian corporations will not be able to compete on an international level with Chinese. Those Hindus/Indians with money who rule India will eventually realise this and will use their press to brain wash their masses to doing a more amenable deal with Pakistan on Kashmir. That is the reason we did not sign the Mush deal

So just chill out the future is bright provided we do not have nuke world war 3.

 

[fd24]

So the two choices are to try and repair relations with USA or to break them off completely.

It would interesting to have a pro and con debate on both of the choices. I feel quite strongly that it would be wiser to repair relations with USA, no matter how difficult the task has been made given recent events and actions by both sides.

VC - its not as straight forward as what you are suggesting. Breaking ties or fixing ties - i wish it was that simple.
Our leaders in the past have made choices to accommodate the USA - and on occasion this has been to the detriment of the "health of Pakistan".
It, as the article states, has been shown that when Pakistan had in the 90s stringent sanctions it showed surprising growth and it was admirable viewing. The fact that the USA started "giving us aid" hindered our stability and growth. Can you not see the link? The USA view bribing our leaders as giving us aid - i see it as a dose of "methadone" as far as our nation is concerned. The funds given may be logged in the US coffers as "aid" - we both know where it ends up leaving our nation in a state of deprivation.
In my opinion we need to break ties with the USA. We ideally want to respectively part ways and seek our survival without "the weekly fix " from them that long term is hemorrhaging our nation. I wish this divorce could be amicable but as you can see with recent events when the super power doesn't get its way - the behavior and response is one to show lashing out and punishing "the patient".
Our options are naturally to form the links that we are already establishing and these are with China, Russia and of course Iran.
BTW - Patience is a great virtue and our nation must show this to reep the rewards of long term self sustainability.

Hi,

Ain't that a great choice---and see how much brain power went into it.

Come come Mastan sahib - i would have expected a better response from someone of your caliber. Are you unable to add anything of substance to the article rather than attempt a lame shot?? Shame

 

[lem34]

So the two choices are to try and repair relations with USA or to break them off completely.

It would interesting to have a pro and con debate on both of the choices. I feel quite strongly that it would be wiser to repair relations with USA, no matter how difficult the task has been made given recent events and actions by both sides.

What if America does not want to? Or America's price is too high??? Two statements that I believe to be correct.

 

[VCheng]

......Got nothing to offer on the China aspect?

Because there IS no China aspect. Pakistan is grossly overestimating the degree to which China can help. Not only that, it overestimates its own importance too. For example:

S............ Long term India needs Pakistani transit routes. These will be available to China and her corporations. As a result Indian corporations will not be able to compete on an international level with Chinese. ................

Surely international commerce and the pecking order is not dependent on the minimal effect of transit through Pakistan.

VC - its not as straight forward as what you are suggesting. Breaking ties or fixing ties - i wish it was that simple.

I do not think it is straightforward either. I was merely summing up the two main themes presented in the TT piece to get the discussion started.

....................
In my opinion we need to break ties with the USA. We ideally want to respectively part ways and seek our survival without "the weekly fix " from them that long term is hemorrhaging our nation. I wish this divorce could be amicable but as you can see with recent events when the super power doesn't get its way - the behavior and response is one to show lashing out and punishing "the patient". .....................

I can see your point very well, except I will say that is simply not possible to go it alone at the present time, and certainly not abruptly. A gradual, grounds-up approach is likely to succeed, but it will require long term hard work and persistence, of the order of a few decades at least. A dedicated plan on a warlike footing by a new governance structure may be able to cut down that time considerably, for sure, if it happens.

What if America does not want to? Or America's price is too high??? Two statements that I believe to be correct.

Well, to be blunt, USA can throw considerable resources at getting what it wants, and preventing what it does not want. The price can be high or low, but is usually extracted nonetheless.

 

[lem34]

Because there IS no China aspect. Pakistan is grossly overestimating the degree to which China can help. Not only that, it overestimates its own importance too. For example:

Well that is the American spin isn't it. China btw has an interest in not being contained. But then you clearly will not factor in anything that shows American position to be not bright and shining

Surely international commerce and the pecking order is not dependent on the minimal effect of transit through Pakistan.

Come on genius. Without these routes through Pakistan Indian companies transit costs will be more than Chinese. That means more expense and that means inability to compete with Chinese companies. Stop being selective in applying your mind to just matters that are self serving to your position

 

[fd24]

I can see your point very well, except I will say that is simply not possible to go it alone at the present time, and certainly not abruptly. A gradual, grounds-up approach is likely to succeed, but it will require long term hard work and persistence, of the order of a few decades at least. A dedicated plan on a warlike footing by a new governance structure may be able to cut down that time considerably, for sure, if it happens.

VC - We are not being left with an alternative. Logic would say cut down "the fix" gradually - that's how to break an addiction - but what we are missing out is the addict hardly ever gets "the fix" - just lip service and of course most of it sees the back pocket of our in bred leaders.
We are left with the awkward situation of being pushed into a corner and having to make decisions with haste. It really is time to do it the hard way and break free from the strangle hold.
Remember when breaking free - there will be a case of it getting worse before it gets better.... always the case after rehab.

 

[lem34]

I do not think it is straightforward either. I was merely summing up the two main themes presented in the TT piece to get the discussion started.

Its actually very simple. Both of you are working on the assumption that we have or had links. Are you all so blind. America's links with Pakistan have always been a means to ends. Its just our corrupt ruling classes that wanted these links so they could hide and enjoy their ill gotten gains from Pakistan in the west. Their kids in western unis, access to western hospitals etc.

Even Zhou Enlai was moved to comment on this in the seventies that it was an impediment to our success

 

[VCheng]

VC - We are not being left with an alternative. Logic would say cut down "the fix" gradually - that's how to break an addiction - but what we are missing out is the addict hardly ever gets "the fix" - just lip service and of course most of it sees the back pocket of our in bred leaders.
We are left with the awkward situation of being pushed into a corner and having to make decisions with haste. It really is time to do it the hard way and break free from the strangle hold.
Remember when breaking free - there will be a case of it getting worse before it gets better.... always the case after rehab.

What you have described rather eloquently, is an abject failure of short-sighted Pakistani policies, pure and simple. Now Pakistan finds itself in a corner and no easy way out.

 

[lem34]

I can see your point very well, except I will say that is simply not possible to go it alone at the present time, and certainly not abruptly. A gradual, grounds-up approach is likely to succeed, but it will require long term hard work and persistence, of the order of a few decades at least. A dedicated plan on a warlike footing by a new governance structure may be able to cut down that time considerably, for sure, if it happens.

We have no choice mate the cost is too high. The only place in the world that gets American largess is Israel. Have a look at how and where our "aid" goes.

Well, to be blunt, USA can throw considerable resources at getting what it wants, and preventing what it does not want. The price can be high or low, but is usually extracted nonetheless.

Well they can ask less of Pakistan. and give more cant they and we will reassess

 

[fd24]

What you have described rather eloquently, is an abject failure of short-sighted Pakistani policies, pure and simple. Now Pakistan finds itself in a corner and no easy way out.

VC - With respect when wanting to entrap someone or something - incentive is given until addiction kicks in and then the habit is difficult to control and you are then "under the spell" - a scenario one never wants to encounter. Blaming Pakistani policies is easy - when you are stuck in the middle of this trance its easily done. I blame both - the provider and the taker.
The situation is perhaps we are in a corner but we must break from the addiction and swallow the sour medicine to eventually see light at the end of the tunnel. I believe the sooner the better!!

 

[lem34]

What you have described rather eloquently, is an abject failure of short-sighted Pakistani policies, pure and simple. Now Pakistan finds itself in a corner and no easy way out.

I would say that a country that has but its troops in a country (Afghanistan) and alienated all the surrounding countries in the neighbourhood and has to beg for transit routes is the one that is in a corner