On October 10, 2007 US Congress’s Armed Services Committee held a hearing to understand the political situation in Pakistan. It does not bode well for Pakistan that this hearing was conducted by armed services committee instead of foreign relations committee. This suggests that US policy of preemptive military strike inside Pakistan has broader appeal inside US congress. The panel invited to the hearing included among others Hussain Haqqani, a scholar from the Carnegie center for international peace. The panel was asked probing questions by the committee to understand the political situation of Pakistan and to formulate the future approach towards it. American scholars presented a dooms day scenario for Pakistan where the hope had less chance to succeed. Mr. Haqqani, a Pakistani scholar, on the other emphasized that long held US approach to support military rulers has to be blamed for the current crisis. He advised US to focus more on providing assistance to ensure provision of basic needs of the people including healthcare, education and job creation. As an intellectual with political ambitions Mr. Haqqani used the platform to lobby for the ascension of Benazir Bhutto as a Western friendly liberal who might be a better alternative to a military ruler.
On October 11th Najam Sethi, editor of The Friday Times, in his op-ed piece in Wall Street Journal advised the US policy makers that military-civil coalition in the form of Musharraf and Benazir Bhutto is their best bet at current time. Sadly he also remarked that free and fair elections might not be in US interest as it might give religious parties greater political powers. This could result in Pakistan pulling out from the deeply unpopular war on terror leaving US alone to tackle in the region. This is the scenario witnessed in Turkey, Algeria and Palestine where Islamist parties have gained popularity among the voters to gain majority in recent elections.
For large part of its history Pakistan is ruled by military rulers who were supported and aided by successive US governments for one reason or the other. It is obvious that a soldier will always aspire to have the best weapon on his side rather than consider farm equipment for an agricultural society. US have always feed this greed for best weapons by selling billions of dollars of equipment. US have also lost his credibility with Pakistani people by not responding adequately in the times of crisis. In the 1965 war US stopped supply of spare parts for fighter jets much needed by the air force. Then in 1971 when India intervened in Bangladesh (former East Pakistan) to support the separatist, promised US 7th Naval fleet never arrived on the horizon to support Pakistan despite assurances. After the collapse of Soviet Union in 1992, US left its strong ally Pakistan to deal with the Afghan crisis on its own. In the 1990s US also closed its US AID’s offices in Pakistan which was supporting projects in the social sector. And recently US signed a nuclear treaty with India despite strong reservations from Pakistan that it could tilt the balance of power in the region and result in an arms race.
A policy focusing on an individuals can not produce deep rooted friendship between any two countries. USA has openly supported coalition of Benazir Bhutto and General Musharraf. This has further tarnished the image of US in the eyes of Pakistani people as it is no secret that previous Benazir governments have been engaged in corrupt practices. Armed forces of Pakistan have been a symbol of unity for the nation but they have lost credibility among its own people because of continued pressure from USA to fight its own people. US can either continue to support proxy rule through their puppets or facilitate formation of a popular government elected by the people. Popular leaders can go back to their constituents seeking help to fight extremism. History shows puppets do not command mass support and eventually fail jeopardizing the strategic interest of their allies as well.
It is quite apparent that in the foreseeable future Pakistan will continue to play an important role for the US in the region. This demands that US take a long term view of its relationship with Pakistan and instead of relying on military rulers develop grass roots level contacts with local politicians and policy makers through the exchange of delegations. US should also consider a free trade agreement with Pakistan which could provide much needed economic boost to the country to alleviate poverty. To counter the infiltration of conservative religious seminaries US should provide help in development of modern education system in the country. Almost three quarters of Pakistan’s population rely on agriculture which lacks capital investment in modern farming. US could reach out to the rural masses to initiate a farming revolution that will not only uplift the economic well being of the poor but also create a positive image for the US. In last few decades the cultural exchange between US and Pakistan has been non-existent. US could support cultural exchange between the two countries to create better understanding between the nations.
Pakistan faces internal and external threat to its solidarity as well as a young population struggling with poverty and dignity. Extremism is still on the fringes but wide spread poverty can fuel its spread to whole of Pakistan. We all have to take a long term view and offer a better ideology to the nation nurturing our deeply routed values of family, dignity and mutual respect. Failure is not an option this time.
The Pakistani Impasse
October 12, 2007 at 5:23 pm · Filed under Political Commentary
On October 10, 2007 US Congress’s Armed Services Committee held a hearing to understand the political situation in Pakistan. It does not bode well for Pakistan that this hearing was conducted by armed services committee instead of foreign relations committee. This suggests that US policy of preemptive military strike inside Pakistan has broader appeal inside US congress. The panel invited to the hearing included among others Hussain Haqqani, a scholar from the Carnegie center for international peace. The panel was asked probing questions by the committee to understand the political situation of Pakistan and to formulate the future approach towards it. American scholars presented a dooms day scenario for Pakistan where the hope had less chance to succeed. Mr. Haqqani, a Pakistani scholar, on the other emphasized that long held US approach to support military rulers has to be blamed for the current crisis. He advised US to focus more on providing assistance to ensure provision of basic needs of the people including healthcare, education and job creation. As an intellectual with political ambitions Mr. Haqqani used the platform to lobby for the ascension of Benazir Bhutto as a Western friendly liberal who might be a better alternative to a military ruler.
On October 11th Najam Sethi, editor of The Friday Times, in his op-ed piece in Wall Street Journal advised the US policy makers that military-civil coalition in the form of Musharraf and Benazir Bhutto is their best bet at current time. Sadly he also remarked that free and fair elections might not be in US interest as it might give religious parties greater political powers. This could result in Pakistan pulling out from the deeply unpopular war on terror leaving US alone to tackle in the region. This is the scenario witnessed in Turkey, Algeria and Palestine where Islamist parties have gained popularity among the voters to gain majority in recent elections.
For large part of its history Pakistan is ruled by military rulers who were supported and aided by successive US governments for one reason or the other. It is obvious that a soldier will always aspire to have the best weapon on his side rather than consider farm equipment for an agricultural society. US have always feed this greed for best weapons by selling billions of dollars of equipment. US have also lost his credibility with Pakistani people by not responding adequately in the times of crisis. In the 1965 war US stopped supply of spare parts for fighter jets much needed by the air force. Then in 1971 when India intervened in Bangladesh (former East Pakistan) to support the separatist, promised US 7th Naval fleet never arrived on the horizon to support Pakistan despite assurances. After the collapse of Soviet Union in 1992, US left its strong ally Pakistan to deal with the Afghan crisis on its own. In the 1990s US also closed its US AID’s offices in Pakistan which was supporting projects in the social sector. And recently US signed a nuclear treaty with India despite strong reservations from Pakistan that it could tilt the balance of power in the region and result in an arms race.
A policy focusing on an individuals can not produce deep rooted friendship between any two countries. USA has openly supported coalition of Benazir Bhutto and General Musharraf. This has further tarnished the image of US in the eyes of Pakistani people as it is no secret that previous Benazir governments have been engaged in corrupt practices. Armed forces of Pakistan have been a symbol of unity for the nation but they have lost credibility among its own people because of continued pressure from USA to fight its own people. US can either continue to support proxy rule through their puppets or facilitate formation of a popular government elected by the people. Popular leaders can go back to their constituents seeking help to fight extremism. History shows puppets do not command mass support and eventually fail jeopardizing the strategic interest of their allies as well.
It is quite apparent that in the foreseeable future Pakistan will continue to play an important role for the US in the region. This demands that US take a long term view of its relationship with Pakistan and instead of relying on military rulers develop grass roots level contacts with local politicians and policy makers through the exchange of delegations. US should also consider a free trade agreement with Pakistan which could provide much needed economic boost to the country to alleviate poverty. To counter the infiltration of conservative religious seminaries US should provide help in development of modern education system in the country. Almost three quarters of Pakistan’s population rely on agriculture which lacks capital investment in modern farming. US could reach out to the rural masses to initiate a farming revolution that will not only uplift the economic well being of the poor but also create a positive image for the US. In last few decades the cultural exchange between US and Pakistan has been non-existent. US could support cultural exchange between the two countries to create better understanding between the nations.
Pakistan faces internal and external threat to its solidarity as well as a young population struggling with poverty and dignity. Extremism is still on the fringes but wide spread poverty can fuel its spread to whole of Pakistan. We all have to take a long term view and offer a better ideology to the nation nurturing our deeply routed values of family, dignity and mutual respect. Failure is not an option this time.
Permalink