Are US-Pakistan relations undergoing a significant transformation?

There are clear indications that Washington is dissatisfied with the status quo and is seeking to ratchet up additional pressure to make Pakistan more compliant and responsive to America's security interests. It is also possible that US-Pakistan relations will become the battleground where Democrats settle political scores with the Bush administration.

Since 2001, when Pakistan abandoned its support for the Taliban regime in Afghanistan and began cooperating with the United States, US-Pakistan relations have centered singularly on US demands. Pakistan's role has been to comply.

Nearly six years after 9/11, Osama Bin Laden is still hiding somewhere in Pakistan, the Taliban has regrouped and reconsolidated -- reportedly in Pakistan -- and Washington is having second thoughts about the honesty and the utility of Pakistani cooperation.

Following the Democratic Party takeover of the US Congress last November, there has been increasing pressure on the Bush administration to re-evaluate its relationship with Pakistan. The most prominent move in this regard is the bill approved by the House of Representatives in January which stipulates that continued financial assistance to Pakistan be contingent upon a certification from the president of the United States that the state of Pakistan is doing its utmost to contain the Taliban and Al-Qaeda. A milder version of the bill is currently being debated in the Senate.

The thinking behind these moves in the US legislature is informed by two emerging developments. The first relates to the growing debate within the United States over an Iraq exit strategy. The logical consequence of movements pushing to draw down troops in Iraq has been a shift in US attention away from the original focus of the US war against militant jihadism � i.e. Afghanistan and the unfinished business of hunting down the Al-Qaeda leadership.

The second reason pertains to the administration's visible unhappiness with the performance of its reluctant ally in the so-called "global war on terror," and the visit by Vice President Dick Cheney himself to Pakistan to tell the General how things stand between them. In public, the administration is still defending President Musharraf as an important ally in the war on terror, but clearly the Mush-Bush pie is turning sour.

It is in this dual-faceted context that the question of Pakistan's performance (or the lack thereof) comes into play. Given that the Taliban insurgency has exhibited phenomenal growth in recent years, especially in 2006, there is concern that the Musharraf government is allowing Pashtun jihadists and their transnational allies to use Pakistani soil as a launch pad for attacks in Afghanistan and beyond.

Is the Musharraf regime doing all it can in the war against terrorists? How much can and should the United States demand from Pakistan? And perhaps most importantly, what can and should Islamabad do with respect to both issues?

The domestic political climates in both the United States and Pakistan also transform the tone of their relationship. The US government is being pushed to demand more and Pakistan is being cornered into a situation where it can deliver less.

As far as Pakistan's track-record is concerned, clearly it has significantly aided US efforts to disrupt the Al-Qaeda network's ability to operate. In this regard, Pakistan has incurred the loss of several hundred of its soldiers as well as the domestic instability that President Musharraf's government continues to deal with. That said, the Pakistanis have not been able to block Taliban activity within their borders. In fact, the last three years have seen the Talibanization of the Pashtun-dominated areas on the Pakistani side of the border with Afghanistan.

The US-Pakistan alliance is critical to the stability of South Asia, to the success of US objectives in Afghanistan and to the ongoing effort to combat Al-Qaeda. Positive US-Pakistan relations are also important for the United States given its myriad problems and low approval ratings in the broader Muslim world. Pakistan needs US economic and military aid to keep up with a rapidly growing India. Without US support, Pakistan will find its geopolitical interests dangerously exposed; without Pakistani assistance, the United States will find it impossible to deal with Al-Qaeda and the Taliban.

Washington must realize that Pakistan is not just an agent to whom foreign policy tasks can be outsourced. It has its own national interests, its domestic political imperatives and geopolitical concerns. Yes, it must be pressured to do more, but without jeopardizing its domestic stability or long-term utility to the United States. Democrats in particular must not use it as a proxy to attack President Bush, for they may inadvertently do much harm to US interests if they undermine the US-Pakistan relationship.

Pakistan, on the other hand, must realize that it has to do more, at home as well as abroad. At home it must step up its efforts at de-Talibanization and re-democratization of its polity. Abroad, it must work to improve the foundation of its relations with Washington, which is critical to its long-term geopolitical and economic well-being. It must work towards the consolidation of US-Pakistan relations and step up its efforts to answer its numerous critics within the Washington Beltway.

It is in the interest of all parties that Pakistan remain a stable country, a strong ally of the United States and a bulwark against extremism in its region.

Whats the point. This is political wrangling meant to push for a change in American government (republican to democrat).. and won't amount to anything. What happens when Musharraf says he can't do anymore than he is? Americans go "that sucks, too bad". So what then. If Americans don't engage with Pakistan, it is their loss .. not Pakistans.

>> Pakistan, on the other hand, must realize that it has to do more, at home as well as abroad. At home it must step up its efforts at de-Talibanization and re-democratization of its polity.

Why? Its not as if its necessarily the right thing to do.

"It is in the interest of all parties that Pakistan remain a stable country..." While I think I know what you mean to say, and, if I do, I agree with you, I'm sure you will receive many comments to the contrary over the next little while, starting with the comment immediately preceding mine.
There seem to be any number of parties who do not see Pakistan's stability as a sine qua non, but rather as a detriment both to Pakistan and to their own communal or selfish interests. I'd prefer to have seen you show a little broader appreciation of the benefits Pakistan reaps from its, dare I say it?, alliance with the US and the general thrust of the war against radical Islamist jihad then the sort of neo-anticolonialist POV you've used. If it is true that the US and allies are not threatened by Islam, but by radical totalitarianist jihadis, then much of what you write above seems either mere background, or beside the point.
Either cooperation, and even alliance, between the US and Pakistan serves important national (political, cultural, economic, security, etc.) interests of each, or it doesn't. That the American Democrats may differ with Republicans on what US national interests are and how to achieve them should not be a condition on how Pakistan understands its national interests, even though that affects how Pakistan pursues its interests. Whether the USA interlocutor is Dem or GOP, the "wily Pathan" and his countrymen must weigh more than just the relationship with India in pursuit of US/Pakistani common goals.
President Musharraf has done a pretty good job, in my estimate, but what really counts will be the way he is seen, and described, by his own countrymen and coreligionists. Encourage experts like yourselves to continue to step up with accurate facts and analysis.

If you're a developing nation .. American legislative efforts will always be dismissive of non-American interests. American interests always come before human rights, mutualism and equality. Its not de fa

>>broader appreciation of the benefits Pakistan reaps from its, dare I say it?, alliance with the US

Only at the agreed upon loss of Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan. Whats to appreciate? Its divide and conquer all over again. Misunderstanding this is playing a losing game/ partnering a parasitic symbiosis etc. People don't want to divide the world into west and non-west. But when the options are profit the west now, profit yourself one hundred years from now .. what choice is that?

>> Either cooperation, and even alliance, between the US and Pakistan serves important national (political, cultural, economic, security, etc.) interests of each, or it doesn't.

That logic can't remedy any of the injustices present in the world because it feeds into well documented cycles of poverty or injustice. Noone can be benefitted without some international equity .. and America will not allow this. Its history, habit and ethic are evident. I think thats evident sine qua non. Pakistan may be unstable but is not defacto expansionary capitalistic state. America seems to be very much so.

After reading your comment, Ghulam, I tried to survey the world from the perspective you suggest – that is, somewhere outside the shores from New York to California. From out there, looks like India, China, central Europe, Nigeria, South Africa, Mexico, Canada and Brazil (and, dare I say it, Israel) are among many profiting right now; the world they participate in is remarkably networked and connected, rather than divided into west and non-west. And since most of these countries are in or approaching healthy trade balances with their partners, rapid rates of growth, increasing popular welfare, and release of the energies of the entire populace, including, especially, women, whose interests are they serving but their own?

More to the point, it seems to me, is that national interests often, perhaps even mostly, do include due consideration of human rights, mutual rights, and equal rights - as proved in assorted UN agencies, EU, ASEAN, NATO, SEATO, and the many other multi and bilateral associations which connect what one might call the functioning core of nations in which the USA and, increasingly, Pakistan, among many, participates. The USA doesn't participate in this emerging network just because it wants to, but also because it must -- in its own national interest.

Looking at this more or less defined group of connected and connecting nations, one may see the categories of imperial or colonial possibility as truly obsolescent, or at least obsolescing, constructs. Thomas Friedman and Thomas Barnett are among the 21st century guides to what I'm talking about. Of course, obsolescent does not mean erased, which leaves us to contemplate the alternatives, as described by, for example, Samuel Huntington, Bernard Lewis, Sayyid Qutb, Ayman Zawahiri and Osama Bin Laden.

For all these reasons, I really admire the title of this piece, evoking the complicated tango, rather than either a stately and sort of old-fogy waltz, or a maniacal rocknroll, as an image of partners who are sometimes close, sometimes separated, always lively, but moving along in a more or less mutually useful, choreographed way. Toes do get stepped on, but the dance goes on.

Just to see if there is a sense of humor in this man(sorry - person) who admires the euphemism of 'Tango' so much, who do you think is the man and who is the woman in this dance? Or to be politically correct, just in case this is a Tango between two men (or women, or two TG people or...the list goes on), who is following and who is leading?

Vasan, I don't take tango to be a euphemism, unless you mean in the sense of the humorous bromide which goes "Why don't Southern Baptists make love standing up? Because people might think they're dancing! " (begging pardon of any SB's in the audience). I believe I spoke, tango as very apt metaphor for human relations of political and any other nature, of the activity of partners: "inter-" rather than "co-dependent"; equal rather than one up/one down; collegial leader/follower when needed or determined by talent, circumstance, situational demands and needs, direction of movement, relative advantage/capacity, negotiation, etc and so on. GENDER not particularly definitive, unless giving birth or relative to distinguishing body parts. Humor definitely a requirement, but so sadly and often lacking, to the detriment of tone and civility. Example, Alt.muslim ran an article a while back about Muslim comedy and comedians, which I have not seen the likes of in any other English language media. I googled the comedian, got some great stuff, and laughs, from his routines. Humor, based as it is in irony, is not among the lesser vehicles for learning. Also I don’t know what the offensive comment about Gujaratiism, referring to your first post here, was about, but am guessing it was a “troll” you’ve heard from before? Was pleased and reinforced that Netiquette Editor found it unfit, perhaps due to my humble note to him, and removed it from the page, illustrates that discrimination and justice sometime coincide.

>> . From out there, looks like India, China, central Europe, Nigeria, South Africa, Mexico, Canada and Brazil (and, dare I say it, Israel) are among many profiting right now

How much do you understand the mechanics of the current system of globalisation? Do you understand that America is continually militarising the middle east and Africa as it has South America with its school of Americas? Do you understand that the WAR in Iraq can be directly linked to American demand for Oil? Do you know that the cycle of poverty continues in MOST of the world

>> Looking at this more or less defined group of connected and connecting nations, one may see the categories of imperial or colonial possibility as truly obsolescent, or at least obsolescing, constructs.

This defaces the facts of the very real state of the worlds poor and the ability to govern themselves within their own nation state without outside interference and for their own economic benefit. Do you know the nature of oil company influence in Nigeria? That 10 million people in South Africa are expected to die of Aids in the next ten years while the country is becoming increasingly privatised and whites and foreign? That billions of people are alienated by these economic policies to benefit a few nations or elected classes of people within them? How economics is leveraged with politics?

>> I tried to survey the world from the perspective you suggest – that is, somewhere outside the shores from New York to California

Really. Where did you look? Because I don't think you did LOOK. American policy webpages maybe? It seems you looked for information that supported the idea of a mostly positively influencing and expanding west on a mostly backward and regressive non-west.

http://www.soaw.org/new/type.php?type=8
[url=http://www.globalpolicy.org/globaliz/index.htm]http://www.globalpolicy.org/globaliz/index.htm[/url]
http://www.afrol.com/articles/14269
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0117-06.htm
http://up191.apf.m2014.net/
http://allafrica.com/stories/200309260386.html

>> and, dare I say it, Israel

You can say anything you like. Being an impartial and fair observer is a choice, not an obligation. There is after all no compulsion in believing the truth.

>> Looking at this more or less defined group of connected and connecting nations

Colonialism connected the world. The commonwealth still exists. The effects of British rule on Muslim (and other) institution is still felt today. Ask everyone from African American slaves, the house of Saud, Descendants of Malay prisoners in Cape Town...

There is an overwhelming body of evidence which points out that the US led western nations have entrenched a neo-imperialist strategy onto the world, built out of the ashes of the old Imperialist Colonialists. WTO, world bank, CIA, American foreign policy, American military, NATO . Denying it is .. absurd.

Tango .. stepping on each others toes. There's a euphemism for mass death somewhere in there isn't there?

Mjay,

Thank you for a civil reply.

My only point in making a joke of the 'Tango' metaphor was that it is a dicey thing to compare complex situations to anything but themselves. For example we have all been in corporate presentations where the speaker chooses to 'illustrate' a problem with a simple analogy. Nine times out of Ten, the analogy will be too simple and will not help in anyway. On the other hand it serves to distract people and in a vague way insult the audience by implying they are not capable of understanding the real problem.

None of that happened here; until I came along, sorry! But by the very fact of the Tango being a very sexually charged dance, the author is leaving himself open to such provocative questions as I posed. And who can resist poking fun at two Macho countries like Pakistan and the USA! I bet you there will be riots in both countries if one of them were to accept that they were playing the role of a woman in the Tango! Though, I must agree with you, in the Tango is a fun dance to watch as opposed to the boring waltzes etc., but to me, in a Tango, the woman is the best part of the dance!

In a way, Indians would probably have no worries in being considered that because when Arundhati Roy spoke of India 'gyrating her hips at the US' to get American Bases in India after 9-11, nobody took offense. After all, it is 'Mother India' - though the word Mother brings to mind an woman with motherly hips and a Tango with her might not be exactly 'fun'!

I wonder about Mother Russia... 'Babushka Tango' anyone?

I have never heard of a 'Mother Pakistan' or 'Mother USA'! What is Pakistan by the way? Motherland, Fatherland? I am curious...

I guess it is 'Uncle Sam' for the Americans - ugh....brings to mind all the bad things associated with an old man with a stern face in a long hat pointing a bony finger like the evil monkey in 'The Family Guy' ...'I'M GONNA GET YOU!!!!' or whatever it is that the famous poster says...