By Ali Farid Khwaja
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=819fc5ea-9ea9-42a1-b7cc-2afeb52b3b2d)
|
Pakistan seems to have occupied a central space in the policy debate and foreign policy agenda of President Obama. Besides getting a lot of attention from the administration, lawmakers and think tanks, the country has also been committed substantial foreign aid package by the US Government. President Obama announced a total aid package of US $10bn to support development work and military operation by the Pakistan army. The aim of this multi-faceted aid and support package is to garner Pakistan's military support in dealing with the situation in Afghanistan, fighting the insurgent radical groups inside Pakistan and to control the threat of religious radicalization inside Pakistan. However I think that cooperation and collaboration between US and Pakistan will remain at a bottleneck until the conspiracy theories and perceptions of the US Af-Pak agenda which exist inside Pakistan are alleviated. I believe the biggest threat to US Pakistan relationship is the trust deficit which exists between the two countries, along with irresponsible media frenzy and aggressive posturing from US administration on the risks, threats and state institutions in Pakistan. |
From the perspective of Pakistan's public, the amount of attention and coverage which the country gets in media, press and international arena is both confusing and suspicious. The country features as a cover page story on magazines like the Economist, Newsweek and the Times and newspapers like New York Times, Financial Times cover the country on almost a daily basis. Huffington Post, a leading news blog, has a separate page for Pakistan with the title that "some stories are so important that they deserve a separate page"! That is indeed a lot of attention and limelight for a medium sized, developing country in Asia. Though a Urdu adage says that it is better to be infamous than not being known at all, most of these stories and expert opinions only create suspicion, fuel conspiracy theories and create further distrust of the West inside Pakistan.
People in Pakistan question, when they read headlines like "Pakistan the most dangerous place in the world", or that "Pakistan is a failed state and about to disintegrate within months". They question under what criteria and evaluation rules has this political judgment, deem fit for a cover page story, been awarded. Is really Pakistan the most dangerous place to live in? What about civil wars in Thailand, what about the decade long conflict in Sri Lanka, what about the many separate movements in India? What about living in Gaza and Palestine? What about Lebanon, Sudan, Somalia, Zimbabwe, Georgia? And of course, what about the prevailing situation in Iraq and Afghanistan? Is Pakistan more dangerous, unstable or even radicalized than some of these countries? The answer to most Pakistanis at least, is no. What about Israel? Israel claims its cities were hit by 6000 rockets fired by Palestinians in Gaza. Doesn't that make Israel more dangerous than Pakistan?
Inside Pakistan, regardless of what is written in the media, people are generally at ease and don't find the frequent warnings credible. This is a very alarming situation. The observations which are made by experts in the US, like Pakistan has risk of disintegration, becoming a failed state or being a dangerous place to live in, only seem to be creating alienation and suspicion inside Pakistan. The mainstream view both in the government, media and the public in Pakistan is that a media and political campaign is being used to malign the country, exaggerate political risks, create militancy and then eventually invade the sovereignty of the country.
People of Pakistan see a conspiracy against their state. They see a conspiracy in which India, US and Israel have collaborated. The conspiracy is to destabilize Pakistan and eventually to divide the country on the lines of provinces; the "balkanization" of Pakistan as President Zardari called it. The theory is that the troika of India-Israel-US has plans to carve an independent state out of Pakistan by dividing the province of Baluchistan and Frontier. Such a state, which extends from the border of Iran and the Indian Ocean will link with Afghanistan to create a larger "Pashtun" belt. From the point of view of US, many strategic advantages are credited behind such a policy agenda: Such a state can create a buffer between Pakistan and Afghanistan, provide the US a supply route from the Indian Ocean to Afghanistan, it will provide access to vital strategic location which borders Iran, Russia and China, and provide access to the presumably minerals and oil and gas rich Baluchistan region. The strategy of getting access to Indian Ocean through Afghanistan has a historical element to it and both USSR and Russia under Peter the Great have believed to have explored the option.
This conspiracy theory is based on the infamous "map" which originated from some US strategy and policy center and has been widely distributed around and commented on in Pakistan. A story on New York Times, captioned, "Obama Plots the Breakup of Pakistan" published on 23 November 2008, had a reference to this map.
This conspiracy theory is fast becoming the mainstream public opinion, accepted both by the establishment in Pakistan and the public on the street. It also seems to have traveled outside Pakistan and Gulf Times, a leading newspaper of Middle East published a story on 22nd April 2009 on the role played by an unnamed leading Gulf state (the reference was to Saudi Arabia) in preventing the US from using an economic aid plan to divide Pakistan. The article talks about how the US and the "West" planned to use an economic aid program to get access to the Baluchistan and Frontier province and later leverage this financial investment to involve UN and broker a division of Pakistan.
Another major perceived threat to Pakistan comes from its Nuclear Weapons. The threat originates not from the Taliban taking over nuclear weapons but rather from the US forces trying to use military and economic pressures to take away nuclear technology from Pakistan. I don't want to debate on the merits or demerits of such a policy or neither on whether such a policy exists but rather want to emphasis that the perception in Pakistan. The mainstream opinion is of a risk on nuclear technology from the US!
Can the US government expect cooperation from Pakistan government, when the perception in Pakistan is that the US wants to break it up? I doubt it. I doubt Pakistan can consider the Taliban their priority when they expect a major political game being played in the region. I doubt, the public opinion inside Pakistan can ever support cooperation with the US if the people believe that the US is a threat to their sovereignty. I doubt the Af-Pak agenda of President Obama can be successful until this distrust exists.
President Obama has been giving mixed signals on his foreign policy agenda. He is softening up to Iran and Cuba, he is silent on Middle East and indecisive on North Korea. Whereas Pakistan, a long ally of the US government since the last sixty years and a country which in 2004 was made a major non-Nato Ally, is now getting aggressive postures from the US administration, Iran is getting New Year greetings from President Obama. It is not surprising then to hear political leaders in Pakistan debating that perhaps taking the Iran route of isolation and defiance might be the best strategy. This to me can be a disastrous scenario for both Pakistan and US, but the risk of pushing Pakistan into isolation are very real. There is a risk that political distrust of the US, along with the aggressive posturing by US administration and the carrot and stick policy, can lead to radicalization and rise of fundamentalism inside the country.
President Obama and his administration face a lot of challenges, more domestic than external. Iraq still is a political mess and Afghanistan has become the drug capital of the world run by war lords. The US domestic economy is still facing the biggest recession in its recent history and large US companies are unsure of their survival. The new US foreign policy needs to be based on partnership and trust and surely President Obama has been a preacher on the merits of these virtues. US relationship with Pakistan also needs to be based on mutual trust and common goals. Carrot and stick policies and intrusion on sovereignty will not only fail US foreign policy agenda in the region but also make the $10bn dollars committed by the US government a case of cash for trash, as Krugman would put it.
I think we should start by being honest. The US needs to address to alleviate these concerns and put end to such conspiracy theories. Perception is reality in foreign affairs and the reaction inside Pakistan of such a perception surely cannot be too productive. The country faces real problems and needs to focus all its resources in dealing with the Taliban rather than getting distracted by ghosts of larger political agendas. Building bridges of trust is necessary for future cooperation and collaboration. Or if there is some truth behind these theories, then again being honest and open is the right policy, as otherwise, it will only create further suspicion and doubt. The bigger risk is that such perception of risk can make other countries in the region like China, Iran and the Middle East also active and lead to another great game in a region which has been home to many.
Ali Farid Khwaja is a London based fund manager and a Rhodes Scholar.
People in Pakistan question, when they read headlines like "Pakistan the most dangerous place in the world", or that "Pakistan is a failed state and about to disintegrate within months". They question under what criteria and evaluation rules has this political judgment, deem fit for a cover page story, been awarded. Is really Pakistan the most dangerous place to live in? What about civil wars in Thailand, what about the decade long conflict in Sri Lanka, what about the many separate movements in India? What about living in Gaza and Palestine? What about Lebanon, Sudan, Somalia, Zimbabwe, Georgia? And of course, what about the prevailing situation in Iraq and Afghanistan? Is Pakistan more dangerous, unstable or even radicalized than some of these countries? The answer to most Pakistanis at least, is no. What about Israel? Israel claims its cities were hit by 6000 rockets fired by Palestinians in Gaza. Doesn't that make Israel more dangerous than Pakistan?
Inside Pakistan, regardless of what is written in the media, people are generally at ease and don't find the frequent warnings credible. This is a very alarming situation. The observations which are made by experts in the US, like Pakistan has risk of disintegration, becoming a failed state or being a dangerous place to live in, only seem to be creating alienation and suspicion inside Pakistan. The mainstream view both in the government, media and the public in Pakistan is that a media and political campaign is being used to malign the country, exaggerate political risks, create militancy and then eventually invade the sovereignty of the country.
People of Pakistan see a conspiracy against their state. They see a conspiracy in which India, US and Israel have collaborated. The conspiracy is to destabilize Pakistan and eventually to divide the country on the lines of provinces; the "balkanization" of Pakistan as President Zardari called it. The theory is that the troika of India-Israel-US has plans to carve an independent state out of Pakistan by dividing the province of Baluchistan and Frontier. Such a state, which extends from the border of Iran and the Indian Ocean will link with Afghanistan to create a larger "Pashtun" belt. From the point of view of US, many strategic advantages are credited behind such a policy agenda: Such a state can create a buffer between Pakistan and Afghanistan, provide the US a supply route from the Indian Ocean to Afghanistan, it will provide access to vital strategic location which borders Iran, Russia and China, and provide access to the presumably minerals and oil and gas rich Baluchistan region. The strategy of getting access to Indian Ocean through Afghanistan has a historical element to it and both USSR and Russia under Peter the Great have believed to have explored the option.
This conspiracy theory is based on the infamous "map" which originated from some US strategy and policy center and has been widely distributed around and commented on in Pakistan. A story on New York Times, captioned, "Obama Plots the Breakup of Pakistan" published on 23 November 2008, had a reference to this map.
This conspiracy theory is fast becoming the mainstream public opinion, accepted both by the establishment in Pakistan and the public on the street. It also seems to have traveled outside Pakistan and Gulf Times, a leading newspaper of Middle East published a story on 22nd April 2009 on the role played by an unnamed leading Gulf state (the reference was to Saudi Arabia) in preventing the US from using an economic aid plan to divide Pakistan. The article talks about how the US and the "West" planned to use an economic aid program to get access to the Baluchistan and Frontier province and later leverage this financial investment to involve UN and broker a division of Pakistan.
Another major perceived threat to Pakistan comes from its Nuclear Weapons. The threat originates not from the Taliban taking over nuclear weapons but rather from the US forces trying to use military and economic pressures to take away nuclear technology from Pakistan. I don't want to debate on the merits or demerits of such a policy or neither on whether such a policy exists but rather want to emphasis that the perception in Pakistan. The mainstream opinion is of a risk on nuclear technology from the US!
Can the US government expect cooperation from Pakistan government, when the perception in Pakistan is that the US wants to break it up? I doubt it. I doubt Pakistan can consider the Taliban their priority when they expect a major political game being played in the region. I doubt, the public opinion inside Pakistan can ever support cooperation with the US if the people believe that the US is a threat to their sovereignty. I doubt the Af-Pak agenda of President Obama can be successful until this distrust exists.
President Obama has been giving mixed signals on his foreign policy agenda. He is softening up to Iran and Cuba, he is silent on Middle East and indecisive on North Korea. Whereas Pakistan, a long ally of the US government since the last sixty years and a country which in 2004 was made a major non-Nato Ally, is now getting aggressive postures from the US administration, Iran is getting New Year greetings from President Obama. It is not surprising then to hear political leaders in Pakistan debating that perhaps taking the Iran route of isolation and defiance might be the best strategy. This to me can be a disastrous scenario for both Pakistan and US, but the risk of pushing Pakistan into isolation are very real. There is a risk that political distrust of the US, along with the aggressive posturing by US administration and the carrot and stick policy, can lead to radicalization and rise of fundamentalism inside the country.
President Obama and his administration face a lot of challenges, more domestic than external. Iraq still is a political mess and Afghanistan has become the drug capital of the world run by war lords. The US domestic economy is still facing the biggest recession in its recent history and large US companies are unsure of their survival. The new US foreign policy needs to be based on partnership and trust and surely President Obama has been a preacher on the merits of these virtues. US relationship with Pakistan also needs to be based on mutual trust and common goals. Carrot and stick policies and intrusion on sovereignty will not only fail US foreign policy agenda in the region but also make the $10bn dollars committed by the US government a case of cash for trash, as Krugman would put it.
I think we should start by being honest. The US needs to address to alleviate these concerns and put end to such conspiracy theories. Perception is reality in foreign affairs and the reaction inside Pakistan of such a perception surely cannot be too productive. The country faces real problems and needs to focus all its resources in dealing with the Taliban rather than getting distracted by ghosts of larger political agendas. Building bridges of trust is necessary for future cooperation and collaboration. Or if there is some truth behind these theories, then again being honest and open is the right policy, as otherwise, it will only create further suspicion and doubt. The bigger risk is that such perception of risk can make other countries in the region like China, Iran and the Middle East also active and lead to another great game in a region which has been home to many.
Ali Farid Khwaja is a London based fund manager and a Rhodes Scholar.
