Charting Pakistan’s future is a nearly impossible task as it is so steeped in uncertainty. And yet it is critical to American foreign policy, with more than 100,000 U.S. troops fighting a resilient insurgency across the border in Afghanistan. While the challenges are nearly insurmountable, experts say, there are areas in which progress for the U.S.-Pakistani relationship is possible.
February 1, 2011
WHITHER PAKISTAN? – Charting Pakistan’s future is a nearly impossible task as it is so steeped in uncertainty. And yet it is critical to American foreign policy, with more than 100,000 U.S. troops fighting a resilient insurgency across the border in Afghanistan. “Predicting Pakistan’s future accurately requires no less than a crystal ball,” says USIP’s Moeed Yusuf, who led a conference on Pakistan at USIP Jan. 31 that included a working lunch and three panels. “Things will get worse before they get better.” The million-dollar question, he said, is “whether Pakistan will be allowed the space to go through these ebbs and flows before it stabilizes. Or will its ‘special place’ in world politics today deny it that luxury, and instead force its internal and external benefactors to keep bandaging the deep-rooted problems Islamabad faces?”
WHAT’S THE BIG IDEA? – Panelists at the Jan. 31 event discussed what “big idea” could help Pakistan chart a more stable future. Better diplomacy, more money and strategic patience are recurring themes, even if all experts don’t agree on the way forward. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee’s Jonah Blank thinks the civilian aid package sponsored by Sens. John Kerry and Richard Lugar and Rep. Howard Berman is one of the best ways. “This is the only big idea in U.S.-Pakistani policy to come down the pike in many, many years,” Blank said at the event. The proposed $7.5 billion aid package is designed to build “a long-term commitment” to Pakistan and move beyond the so-called transactional relationship that has characterized the bilateral alliance since 2001, he said. Building up Pakistan and assisting ordinary Pakistanis may help to avoid the kinds of problems the world is seeing in places like Egypt this week. “Placing all our bets on military strongmen while ignoring the voices and the angers of the populations of those countries is not a recipe for long-term stability and is probably not in the interest of the United States,” Blank said.
WHAT’S THE OTHER BIG IDEA? – But money may not be the all-encompassing solution. “I’m worried if money is a big enough idea in Pakistan,” said USIP’s Andrew Wilder. Since 2001, the U.S. has given Pakistan some $15 billion in American aid, but the U.S.-Pakistani relationship remains weak at best. “Pakistan continues to seethe with anti-U.S. sentiment,” Yusuf wrote in a USIP Peace Brief last summer. Georgetown’s Christine Fair (a former USIP senior research associate) notes: “It really is important that we think about a new big idea for Pakistan.” Fair suggests that the U.S. and Pakistan actually don’t share strategic interests but can build a long-term alliance anyway. For example, Pakistan does not believe that the U.S. accepts Pakistan as a nuclear state. But if the U.S. conferred legitimacy on Pakistan’s nuclear program, it could change the dynamic, she argued. That’s the kind of big idea that’s needed now. “Putting that out on the table creates an enormous space for us to talk about what can you, Pakistan, do to deal with these strategic issues over which we disagree so much.”
- Read Moeed Yusuf’s Peace Brief "Correcting America's Image Problem in Pakistan"
- Learn about Christine Fair’s USIP published books on Pakistan
IS U.S. POLICY BIFURCATED? – Most panelists agree the U.S. often fails to view Pakistan in its regional context, and that American policy would be better served if there wasn’t one large seam dividing the region within the U.S. government. The Department of Defense puts India in the Pacific Command box and Pakistan in the Central Command box, under the assumption that American military policy will then be “tied together at the top,” as one expert said. Fixing this, and bringing more emphasis to the impact India has on Pakistan would go a long way to making long-term strategic thought about Pakistan more effective, the experts agreed. “Organization is important,” panelist Bruce Riedel of the Brookings Institution said.
KASHMIR: THE “ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM” – Most experts agree that American policy in South Asia must better emphasize the relationship between Pakistan and India. But that begs the question of border dispute in Kashmir that so defines the way Pakistan sees itself vis-à-vis India. “The United States must have its own views on Kashmir… I think we should speak up and talk about this,” said the Brookings Institution’s Stephen Cohen. And the Kashmiris themselves must count more: “For too long the Pakistanis and the Indians have been talking as if the Kashmiris don’t exist,” says the Atlantic Council’s Shuja Nawaz. “I see Kashmir as a great opportunity.”
OPPORTUNITIES GALORE – The U.S. is confronted with a number of opportunities when it comes to strengthening its relationship with Pakistan and setting it on a more positive course for the long-term. For example, Riedel says that the U.S. must not squander the symbolic value of Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari’s expected visit to Washington, possibly as early as next month. But if American officials bad-mouth Zardari before the visit, it will undercut the opportunity. “If you don’t believe me, go see Hamid Karzai,” says Riedel. Instead, Zardari should be asked to address a joint session of Congress to make the case for Pakistan, Riedel suggests. “He can fight for what Pakistan needs,” Riedel says. Likewise, Obama’s pledge to visit Pakistan is rich with substantive and symbolic value. Riedel believes Obama should get out of Islamabad to meet as many Pakistanis as he can. “This is an enormously important visit,” adds Riedel. “He needs to connect with the Pakistani people.”
WHERE TO START? – The U.S.-Pakistani relationship today is in a “deep state of disrepair,” according to Riedel, and the U.S. must be realistic about what it can achieve. It’s the Pakistanis, not the Americans, who will determine Pakistan’s future. And while the challenges are nearly insurmountable, experts say, there are areas in which progress is possible. More transparency – over the use of drone attacks, for example, a better dialogue between the two countries, and new ways of thinking about the relationship are a start. “Our capacity for harm, as the last 60 years show, is quite large,” says Riedel. “We can make bad situations really bad situations,” he said, invoking the Hippocratic oath: “Do no harm, don’t make it worse."
Explore Further
- Learn more about the Jan. 31 USIP event "The Future of Pakistan"
- Countries and Regions: Pakistan
- Afghanistan's New Parliament
"On the Issues" by Andrew Wilder | January 2011 - Countries and Regions: Afghanistan