The relationship between Pakistan and the US is one of operatic dimensions, with at least two leading ladies and a slew of contenders for the lead male role oscillating between love and hate. The US has often interfered in Pakistani politics, with cryptic public statements, sanctions, harsh admonitions, and long phone calls in the middle of the night determining the course of this nation’s history. Now, however, a role reversal seems to be underway. Pakistan–with its centre-stage positioning in the 2008 presidential race–is all set to influence the course of US politics and thus, indirectly, the global landscape.
The impact of Hilary Clinton’s suggestion in the run-up to the New Hampshire caucus that the US and the UK jointly secure our nuclear facilities suggests that a strong Pakistan policy is a key in this US election. Clinton is far too savvy a foreign policy analyst to champion an idea that undermines Pakistani sovereignty and delivers what many consider our most precious commodity into western hands. But talking big about Pakistan these days is sure to ignite some election heat. Say something provocative about "the world’s most dangerous place", and you’re sure to make headlines. And while I can’t prove the exact correlation between Clinton’s comments and her subsequent victory in the presidential primary, the media coverage she received is bound to have made a difference.
In this context, it seems as if Pakistan should shelve the perception that its anti-American stance is a given. Images of enraged youth burning effigies of George Bush and stomping on the stars and stripes are no longer helpful. And official statements that work off the premise that Pakistanis hate Americans, but need their money, must be nuanced. After all, it’s common knowledge that the dynamic is far more complicated than that. Pakistanis are currently mourning the death of a leader who openly tangoed with the US. Benazir Bhutto had clearly stated that she would request US help in dealing with the Taliban menace and securing Pakistan’s nuclear stores. It was no secret that she returned to Pakistan in October on US directives. Responding to the wishes of the White House, she even compromised her oft-stated belief that military intervention was unacceptable by agreeing to collaborate with Musharraf to help create a democratic façade for the country. If she had survived to become prime minister this month, she would have embraced an open collaboration with the US under the umbrella of the war on terror.
Under the circumstances, Pakistan’s caretaker government and, come February, the newly-elected office bearers, should engage with the US rather than have a knee-jerk, dismissive reaction to any Pakistan policy proposed by presidential hopefuls. The fact is that the next president of the US, whoever he or she might be, will address the jihadist threat emanating from Pakistani soil. By responding thoughtfully to the ideas floated by both Democratic and Republican candidates, Pakistanis can help sway the outcome of the US election and ensure that the best possible understanding between the two countries emerges in the process. By rejecting outrageous suggestions, the Pakistani government can discredit those candidates, like Mike Huckabee, who do not understand our political landscape. But presidential hopefuls and the American public will only take these rejections seriously if our government simultaneously applauds reasonable solutions to the Pakistan problem floated during presidential debates. Indeed, if our government consistently issues articulate and measured analyses of different Pakistan strategies during the course of this election year, its recommendations will inevitably find their way into US policy documents. And who better to determine America’s Pakistan policy than Pakistan itself?
At this early stage, non of the presidential hopefuls have tossed up an acceptable vision for a US-Pakistan collaboration in the war on terror. But nuggets of wisdom do exist amongst the tangle of voices. Parsing through the different stances yields a vast middle ground in which US aid and intervention could help bolster democratic reform and undermine the threat posed by terrorism while respecting national sovereignty.
The four Democratic candidates–Clinton, Barack Obama, Bill Richardson, and John Edwards–are prepared to launch unilateral military strikes if there is "actionable intelligence" of a security threat, or if Osama bin Laden’s location can be verified. Not surprisingly, this stance rankles with many Pakistanis who are horrified at the thought of a US military intervention–or should I say invasion?–against Islamabad’s wishes.
But just as there’s more to Pakistan’s anti-Americanism, there’s more to the trigger-happy suggestions of presidential hopefuls. Obama is willing to continue hundreds of millions of dollars of military aid to Pakistan, but only on the condition that substantial progress is made towards closing down training camps and preventing the Taliban from using Pakistan as a staging area for attacks in Afghanistan. Obama’s belief that Pakistan ‘needs more than F-16s to combat extremism’ is one that should be adopted by our government as well. For his part, Edwards is willing to maintain ties with Musharraf and continue economic and military aid to Pakistan if our government extends the reach of the legitimate government to the tribal areas. While his suggestion goes against historical trends, Edwards is correct to point out that the Pakistani government needs to exert some authority and regain respect amongst FATA residents to earn their collaboration in the fight against militancy.
Republican candidates also have a few choice suggestions. Ron Paul, who opposes aid to Pakistan, rightfully emphasizes that extremist militancy exists because US forces have ‘invaded’ and ‘occupied’ Muslim countries and maintained bases across the Muslim world for a long time prior to 9/11. His insightful comments can certainly help inform US foreign policy in the coming years. Mitt Romney, meanwhile, has explicitly stated that bombing a potential ally is a bad idea. Finally, John McCain has advocated making "a long-term commitment" to Pakistan, acknowledging that the war on terror cannot be won overnight. Although he has discussed the possibility enhancing Pakistan’s security capabilities, he is more excited about getting children out of seminaries and into schools. In the midst of these myriad suggestions lies a sensible Pakistan policy. It’s our own responsibility to guide the next American president and ensure that unilateral US action does not further destabilize our country.
Leave Your Comments